Biennial Report to Congress on the 

Recovery Program for Threatened 

and Endangered Species 

October 1, 2008 – September 30, 2010 

Science, Service, Stewardship 

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service 
Cover photo credit: Hawaiian monk seal (NMFS) 
 

 

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................. i
 

LIST OF TABLES....................................................................................................................... iii
 

LIST OF FIGURES..................................................................................................................... iii
 

ACRONYM LIST........................................................................................................................ iv
 

BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................... 1
 

OVERVIEW.................................................................................................................................. 1
 

SEA TURTLE RECOVERY ....................................................................................................... 9
 

Green Sea Turtle (Chelonia mydas) ..................................................................................... 11
 

Hawksbill Sea Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata)................................................................... 17
 

Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle (Lepidochelys kempii) ................................................................. 21
 

Leatherback Sea Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) ................................................................. 24
 

Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Caretta caretta) ............................................................................. 29
 

Olive Ridley Sea Turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea).................................................................. 34
 

PACIFIC SALMON RECOVERY ........................................................................................... 37
 

OVERVIEW FOR 2008–2010 ....................................................................................................... 37
 

SALMON RECOVERY IN THE NORTHWEST .................................................................................. 44
 

Puget Sound Chinook ESU (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha).................................................... 44
 

Hood Canal Summer-Run Chum ESU (Oncorhynchus keta) ............................................... 47
 

Ozette Lake Sockeye ESU (Oncorhynchus nerka) ................................................................ 49
 

Puget Sound Steelhead DPS (Oncorhynchus mykiss)........................................................... 51
 

Upper Willamette River Chinook ESU (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha).................................. 54
 

Lower Columbia River Chinook ESU (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) ................................... 57
 

Lower Columbia River Steelhead DPS (Oncorhynchus mykiss) .......................................... 60
 

Lower Columbia River Coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch)......................................................... 63
 

Columbia River Chum ESU (Oncorhynchus keta)................................................................ 66
 

Upper Willamette River Steelhead DPS (Oncorhynchus mykiss)......................................... 68
 

Upper Columbia River Spring-Run Chinook ESU (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)............... 70
 

Snake River Spring/Summer-Run Chinook ESU (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) ................... 73
 

Snake River Fall-Run Chinook ESU (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) ..................................... 75
 

Upper Columbia River Steelhead DPS (Oncorhynchus mykiss) .......................................... 77
 

Middle Columbia River Steelhead DPS (Oncorhynchus mykiss) ......................................... 79
 

Snake River Basin Steelhead DPS (Oncorhynchus mykiss).................................................. 82
 

Snake River Sockeye ESU (Oncorhynchus nerka) ................................................................ 84
 

Oregon Coast Coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch)....................................................................... 86
 

SALMON RECOVERY OVERLAPPING IN THE NORTHWEST AND SOUTHWEST............................... 88
 

Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast Coho ESU (Oncorhynchus kisutch).............. 88
 

SALMON RECOVERY IN THE SOUTHWEST................................................................................... 91
 

Central California Coast Coho Salmon ESU (Oncorhynchus kisutch)................................ 91
 

Northern California Steelhead DPS (Oncorhynchus mykiss)............................................... 94
 

California Coastal Chinook Salmon ESU (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)............................. 97
 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov i 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Central California Coast Steelhead DPS (Oncorhynchus mykiss)..................................... 100
 

South-Central California Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss)............................................. 103
 

Southern California Coast Steelhead DPS (Oncorhynchus mykiss) .................................. 106
 

Sacramento River Winter-run Chinook Salmon ESU (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)......... 109
 

Central Valley Spring-run Chinook Salmon ESU (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) ............... 112
 

California Central Valley Steelhead DPS (Oncorhynchus mykiss).................................... 116
 

ATLANTIC SALMON RECOVERY .................................................................................... 119
 

Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar) – Gulf of Maine DPS ......................................................... 119
 

NON-SALMONID FISH RECOVERY.................................................................................. 123
 

Bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis) – Puget Sound/Georgia Basin DPS................................ 123
 

Canary rockfish (Sebastes pinniger) – Puget Sound/Georgia Basin.................................. 125
 

Eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus) – Southern DPS........................................................... 127
 

Green Sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris) – Southern DPS ................................................. 129
 

Gulf Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi) ................................................................... 131
 

Shortnose Sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum).................................................................... 133
 

Smalltooth Sawfish (Pristis pectinata) – U.S. DPS............................................................. 136
 

Yelloweye Rockfish (Sebastes ruberrimus) – Puget Sound/Georgia Basin ........................ 138
 

PLANTS ................................................................................................................................. 140
 

Johnson’s Seagrass (Halophila johnsonii) ......................................................................... 140
 

INVERTEBRATES ................................................................................................................ 141
 

Black abalone (Haliotis cracherodii) ................................................................................. 141
 

Elkhorn and Staghorn corals (Acropora palmata and A. cervicornis) .............................. 144
 

White abalone (Haliotis sorenseni) .................................................................................... 146
 

MARINE MAMMAL RECOVERY ....................................................................................... 149
 

SEALS AND SEA LIONS ............................................................................................................. 149
 

Guadalupe Fur Seal (Arctocephalus townsendi)................................................................ 149
 

Hawaiian Monk Seal (Monachus schauinslandi) ............................................................... 151
 

Steller Sea Lion (Eumetopias jubatus) – Eastern DPS....................................................... 155
 

Steller Sea Lion – Western DPS (Eumetopias jubatus) ...................................................... 159
 

WHALES................................................................................................................................... 162
 

Beluga Whale (Delphinapterus leucas) – Cook Inlet DPS ................................................. 162
 

Blue Whale (Balaenoptera musculus)................................................................................. 165
 

Bowhead Whale (Balaena mysticetus)................................................................................ 167
 

Fin Whale (Balaenoptera physalus) ................................................................................... 169
 

Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) .................................................................... 171
 

Killer Whale (Orcinus orca) – Southern Resident DPS...................................................... 176
 

North Atlantic Right Whale (Eubalaena glacialis)............................................................. 179
 

North Pacific right whale (Eubalaena japonica)................................................................ 183
 

Sei Whale (Balaenoptera borealis)..................................................................................... 185
 

Sperm Whale (Physeter macrocephalus)............................................................................ 187
 

LITERATURE CITED ............................................................................................................ 190
 

APPENDIX A. NMFS Recovery Priority Number Guidelines............................................ 194
 

ii www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1. ESA-listed species under NMFS jurisdiction including listing status, trends, 

priority numbers, and recovery plan status ............................................................................................ 5
 

Table 2. Status and trends of Pacific olive ridley nesting populations ............................................................ 34
 

Table 3. ESA Listing Status of Pacific Salmon and Steelhead..........................................................................17
 

Table 4. Status of ESA Recovery Plan Development Status for Pacific Salmon and
 

Steelhead .................................................................................................................................................... 39
 

Table 5. Major shortnose sturgeon threats ........................................................................................................134
 

Table 6. White abalone nearest neighbor estimates over time for Tanner Bank.........................................148
 

Table 7. Changes in white abalone population size over time........................................................................148
 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1. Estimated number of female green turtles nesting at East Island, French Frigate 

Shoals, Hawaiian Archipelago, 1973–2010........................................................................................... 11
 

Figure 2. Number of green turtle nests documented on Florida core index beaches,
 

1989–2010..................................................................................................................................................12
 

Figure 3. Kemp’s ridley nesting trends in Mexico, 1978–2010..........................................................................21
 

Figure 4. Nesting activity of North Pacific loggerhead turtles 1990 – 2007....................................................29
 

Figure 5. Number of loggerhead nests documented on Florida core index beaches,
 

1989–2010..................................................................................................................................................30
 

Figure 6. Distribution of ESA-Listed Pacific Salmon and Steelhead by Recovery Domain.........................38
 

Figure 7. Recent steelhead runs at the San Clemente Dam fish ladder, at river mile 18.6 on the Carmel
 

River..........................................................................................................................................................103
 

Figure 8. O. mykiss observed in the Santa Ynez River system and at the fish-passage facility on the Vern
 

Figure 9. Estimated abundance of adult winter-run Chinook salmon returning to spawn in the
 

Freeman Diversion Dam on the Santa Clara River ..........................................................................107
 

Sacramento River....................................................................................................................................110
 

Figure 10. Time series of escapement for Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon populations. ..........129
 

Figure 11. Historic range of black abalone from Crescent City, California, USA to Baja California Sur,
 

Mexico......................................................................................................................................................143
 

Figure 12. California commercial catch (weight in shell) of white abalone reported in CDFG bulletins for
 

the period 1955–1997..................................................................................147
 

Figure 13. Steller sea lion range and rookeries......................................................................................................156
 

Figure 15. Areas occupied by beluga whales in Cook Inlet, Alaska, in June/July 1978–1979...............164
 

Figure 16. Areas occupied by beluga whales in Cook Inlet, Alaska, in June/July 1993–1997...............164
 

Figure 17. Areas occupied by beluga whales in Cook Inlet, Alaska, in June 1998–2008......................164
 

Figure 14. Population of Cook Inlet beluga whales, 1993–2011 .......................................................................163
 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov iii 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CC 

ACRONYM LIST
 

BDCP	 Bay-Delta Conservation Plan 

BRT	 Biological Review Team 

California Coastal 

CCC	 Central California Coast 

CDFG	 California Department of Fish and Game 

CMP	 Conservation and Management Plan 

CVP	 Central Valley Project 

CVPIA Central Valley Project Improvement Act 

DPS Distinct Population Segments 

ESA	 Endangered Species Act 

ESU	 Evolutionarily Significant Unit 

FCRPS	 Federal Columbia River Power System 

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

FWS	 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

GOM	 Gulf of Maine 

HCP	 Habitat Conservation Plan 

HSRG Hatchery Scientific Review Group 

IOSEA	 Indian Ocean and Southeast Asia 

IWC	 International Whaling Commission 

MHI	 Main Hawaiian Islands 

MMPA	 Marine Mammal Protection Act 

MOU	 Memorandum of Understanding 

mtDNA	 Mitochondrial Deoxyribonucleic acid 

NEPA	 National Environmental Policy Act 

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NWHI	 Northwestern Hawaiian Islands 

PCBs	 polychlorinated biphenyls 

PCSRF	 Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund 

RPA	 Reasonable and Prudent Alternative 

SNP	 Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms 

SONCC Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast 

STSSN	 Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network 

SWP	 State Water Project 

TED	 Turtle Excluder Device 

TRT Technical Recovery Teams 

WCPFC	 Western and Central Pacific Fishery Commission 

iv www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND 

The primary purpose of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended, is the conservation of 

endangered and threatened species and the ecosystems on which they depend. Conservation is defined as 

“...the use of all methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered species or threatened 

species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to this Act are no longer necessary.” As one 

means of achieving recovery, the ESA requires the development of recovery plans for listed endangered or 

threatened species (except those species for which it is determined that such a plan will not promote the 

conservation of the species). These plans organize and guide the recovery process. The ESA amendments of 

1988 added a requirement that the Secretaries of Commerce and the Interior report to Congress every 2 years 

on the status of efforts to develop and implement recovery plans, and on the status of all species for which 

recovery plans have been developed (section 4(f)(3)). The Secretary of Commerce has delegated responsibility 

for endangered and threatened species recovery to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) of the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). This is the eleventh Report to Congress on the 

status of the recovery program for these species. 

OVERVIEW 

This report summarizes efforts to recover all domestic species under NMFS’ jurisdiction from October 1, 

2008, through September 30, 2010. It includes accounts of each species, its status, current threats, 

conservation actions undertaken during this timeframe, and priority actions needed in the next biennium. 

During the two years covered in this report, NMFS had jurisdiction over 64 domestic species1 of salmon, 

sturgeon, sawfish, sea grass, mollusks, sea turtles, and marine mammals, and eight foreign species, for a total 

of 72 species. Sixty-four species are addressed in this report, including five newly listed species: 

•	 Black abalone (Haliotis cracherodii), listed as endangered on January 14, 2009 (74 FR 1947); 

•	 Puget Sound/Georgia Basin Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis), 

listed as endangered on April 28, 2010 (75 FR 22276); 

•	 Puget Sound/Georgia Basin DPS of canary rockfish (Sebastes pinniger), listed as threatened on April 

28, 2010 (75 FR 22276); 

•	 Southern DPS of eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus), listed as threatened on March 18, 2010 (75 FR 

13012); 

•	 Puget Sound/Georgia Basin DPS of yelloweye rockfish (Sebastes ruberrimus), listed as threatened on 

April 28, 2010 (75 FR 22276). 

Of our 64 domestic listed species, 29 currently have final recovery plans, 8 currently have draft recovery 

plans, 24 plans are being developed, and 3 species have no plans: 

•	 Final recovery plans were published for sperm whale, fin whale, and Middle Columbia River
 

Steelhead DPS.
 

•	 Draft recovery plans were published for the Kemp’s ridley sea turtle (revision), sei whale, Upper 

Willamette River Chinook Salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU), Upper Willamette River 

Steelhead DPS, Central California Coast coho ESU, Central Valley spring-run Chinook ESU, 

Sacramento River winter-run Chinook ESU, Central Valley steelhead DPS, and Southern California 

steelhead DPS. 

•	 A recovery plan is being revised for Johnson’s seagrass. 

1 Species is defined in the ESA as including any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any 

species of vertebrate fish or wildlife that interbreeds when mature. 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

•	 Recovery plans are currently under development for elkhorn and staghorn corals, Cook Inlet beluga 

whale, green sturgeon, and 15 ESUs and DPSs of Pacific salmon and steelhead, respectively. 

•	 Three listed species currently have no recovery plan in development—Guadalupe fur seal, bowhead 

whale, and North Pacific right whale. 

In addition to these recovery plans, a Final Columbia River Estuary ESA Recovery Plan Module for Salmon 

and Steelhead was completed as an element of a larger regional planning effort to develop recovery plans for 

ESA-listed salmon and steelhead trout in the Columbia River basin. This module complements the other 

recovery plans being developed in the region by focusing on habitat conditions and processes in the 

Columbia River estuary and plume and outlines management actions intended to reduce the threats and 

increase the survival potential of salmon and steelhead during estuarine rearing and migration. 

Recovery of threatened and endangered species is a tremendous, long-term challenge. Between October 1, 

2008, and September 30, 2010, the status of the 64 domestic endangered or threatened species listed under 

the ESA was as follows: 

•	 26 (41%) were stabilized or improving; 

•	 17 (26%) were known to be declining; 

•	 7 (11%) were mixed; and 

•	 14 (22%) were unknown in their status. 

These percentages reflect a minor variation from the previous 2006–2008 Biennial Report, and reflect five of 

the newly listed species with declining population trends. Two species with improving status are the eastern 

DPS of Steller sea lion and the Kemp’s Ridley sea turtle. The eastern DPS of Steller sea lion increased at over 

3 percent per year between 1982 and 2009, more than doubling in Southeast Alaska, British Columbia, and 

Oregon. In the 2008 Steller Sea Lion Recovery Plan, NMFS concluded that the most important protection 

for this population has likely been prohibitions on lethal takes. Due to the improved status, NMFS is 

conducting a status review to determine whether delisting of this species is warranted. The Kemp’s ridley sea 

turtle may be in the early stages of recovery as a result of intensive bi-lateral conservation efforts, including 

full protection of nesting females and their eggs in Mexico, and implementation of turtle excluder device 

requirements in the U.S. shrimp trawl fishery. This species, once described as the most imperiled of all marine 

turtles, has seen a 10 percent increase in the number of nests observed at its primary nesting beach in Mexico 

since the mid-1980s. 

Two species whose status continues to decline are the Central California Coast (CCC) coho salmon and the 

Hawaiian monk seal. The CCC coho salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit is critically close to extinction. 

Only a few hundred adults have returned annually over the past several years. Many factors have led to the 

decline of CCC coho including historical logging, urbanization, overfishing, and climatic variability, to name a 

few. The continued decline of the endangered CCC Coho and increasing risk of extinction has raised 

awareness on the urgency of needed action and prompted a number of State, Federal, and local efforts to 

engage in projects that have immediate benefits in improving freshwater survival. The southern extent of the 

range (south of San Francisco Bay) is particularly imperiled and believed extirpated except for one small 

stream: San Vicente Creek in Santa Cruz County. Surveys and research have shown a small population of 

CCC coho salmon occupying small abandoned agricultural ponds adjacent to the creek; providing critical off 

channel habitat. Two restoration projects have been completed aimed at converting these ponds to higher 

quality salmon rearing habitat. Only a small handful of adult coho returned to the rivers south of San 

Francisco Bay—several were observed in San Vicente. These areas are also now being used by NOAA’s 

captive broodstock program with captive broodstock being released into several areas on San Vicente. With 

focused efforts in key areas we just might be able to halt their trajectory to extinction. 

The Hawaiian monk seal is declining at about 4 percent a year—the primary cause of the overall decline 

appears to be low juvenile survival in the Northwest Hawaiian Islands, where only about one of every five 

2 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

seals survives to reproductive age. The best estimate of the current total Hawaiian monk seal population is 

1,161 seals. A substantial funding increase in fiscal years 2009 and 2010 allowed NMFS to implement several 

new research and management activities designed to reduce juvenile seal mortality in the Northwestern 

Hawaiian Islands and improve community-based management in the main Hawaiian Islands. For example, 

juvenile mortality at a key breeding site in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (French Frigate Shoals) was 

reduced by mitigating shark predation and moving weaned pups away from high mortality areas. In the Main 

Hawaiian Islands, hundreds of new volunteers were recruited and trained to conduct public outreach and 

respond to seals hauled out on popular recreational beaches, in partnership with the State of Hawaii, the U.S. 

Coast Guard, and several other government and non-government partners. 

A list of species for which NMFS is responsible is provided in the following section. 

Recovery plans are available online at 

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

Recovery plans may also be requested by writing to the following address: 

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 online via the NMFS-Office of Protected Resources website at 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/PR3/biennial.html 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 3 
This Page Intentionally Left Blank 

4 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 1. ESA-listed species under NMFS jurisdiction including listing status, trends, priority numbers, and recovery plan status. 

Species/ESU/DPS 

SEA TURTLES 

Green sea turtle 

-Breeding colony populations in Florida, Pacific 

coast Mexico 

-Rangewide 

Hawksbill sea turtle 

Kemp’s Ridley sea turtle 

Leatherback sea turtle 

Loggerhead sea turtle 

Olive Ridley sea turtle 

-Breeding colony populations of Pacific coast 

Mexico 

-Rangewide 

PACIFIC SALMON 

Northwest Region 

-Puget Sound Chinook ESU 

-Hood Canal Summer-run chum ESU 

-Ozette Lake sockeye ESU 

-Puget Sound steelhead DPS 

-Upper Willamette River Chinook ESU 

-Lower Columbia River Chinook ESU 

-Lower Columbia River steelhead DPS 

Date Listed / 

Reclassified 

7/28/1978 

7/28/1978 

6/2/1970 

12/2/1970 

6/2/1970 

7/28/1978 

7/28/1978 

7/28/1978 

3/24/1999; 

6/28/20052 

3/25/1999; 

6/28/20052 

3/25/1999; 

6/28/20052 

5/11/2007 

3/24/1999; 

6/28/20052 

6/28/20052 

3/19/1998; 

1/5/20062 

ESA Status Population/ 

ESU Trend 

Recovery 

Priority 

Number1 

Endangered 

Increasing (FL); 

Declining 

(Mexico) 

5 

Threatened Declining 5 

Endangered Declining 1 

Endangered Increasing 5 

Endangered 

Declining 

(Pacific); Mixed 

(Atlantic) 

1 

Threatened 

Mixed (Pacific); 

Declining 

(Atlantic) 

5 

Endangered Mixed 5 

Threatened Mixed 5 

Threatened Stable or 

Increasing 1 

Threatened Stable or 

Increasing 1 

Threatened Stable or 

Increasing 1 

Threatened Declining 1 

Threatened Stable or 

Increasing 1 

Threatened Stable or 

Increasing 1 

Threatened Stable or 

Increasing 1 

Status of Recovery Plan 

Completed 01/1998 

Completed 01/1998 (Pacific); 10/1991 (Atlantic) 

Completed 01/1998 (Pacific); 12/1993 (Atlantic) 

Draft Completed 03/2010; 

Revision Under Development 

Completed 01/1998 (Pacific); 04/1992 (Atlantic) 

Completed 01/1998 (Pacific); 12/1991; Revision 

Completed 01/2009 (Atlantic) 

Completed 01/1998 

Completed 01/1998 

Completed 01/2007 

Completed 05/2007 

Completed 05/2009 

Under Development 

Draft Completed 10/2010 

Partial Draft Completed 02/2006 (Washington); 

Under Development (Oregon) 

Partial Draft Completed 02/2006 (Washington); 

Under Development (Oregon) 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 5 
 

Species/ESU/DPS 

-Lower Columbia River Coho ESU 

-Columbia River chum ESU 

-Upper Willamette River steelhead DPS 

-Upper Columbia River, Spring Run Chinook 

ESU 

-Snake River Spring/Summer-run Chinook 

ESU 

-Snake River Fall-run Chinook ESU 

-Upper Columbia River steelhead DPS 

-Middle Columbia River steelhead DPS 

-Snake River Basin steelhead DPS 

-Snake River sockeye ESU 

-Oregon Coast coho ESU 

Northwest and Southwest Regions 

-Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast 

coho ESU 

Southwest Region 

-Central California Coast coho ESU 

-Northern California steelhead DPS 

-California Coastal Chinook ESU 

-Central California Coast steelhead DPS 

-South-Central California Coast steelhead DPS 

-Southern California Coast steelhead DPS 

Date Listed / 

Reclassified 

3/24/1999; 

6/28/20052 

3/25/1999; 

6/28/20052 

3/25/1999; 

1/5/20062 

3/24/1999; 

6/28/20052 

4/22/1992; 

6/28/20052 

4/22/1992; 

6/28/20052 

8/18/1997; 

1/5/20062 

3/25/1999; 

1/5/20062 

8/18/1997; 

1/5/20062 

11/20/1991; 

6/28/20052 

8/10/19982; 

2/11/2008 

5/6/1997; 

6/28/20052 

10/31/1996; 

6/28/20052 

6/7/2000; 

1/5/20062 

9/16/1999 

6/28/20052 

8/18/1997; 

1/5/20062 

8/18/1997; 

1/5/20062 

8/18/1997; 

05/01/20023; 

1/5/20062 

ESA Status 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Threatened3 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Population/ 

ESU Trend 

Stable or 

Increasing 

Stable or 

Increasing 

Stable or 

Increasing 

Stable or 

Increasing 

Stable or 

Increasing 

Stable or 

Increasing 

Stable or 

Increasing 

Stable or 

Increasing 

Stable or 

Increasing 

Unknown 

Stable or 

Increasing 

Unknown 

Declining 

Unknown 

Unknown 

Unknown 

Unknown 

Unknown 

Recovery 

Priority 

Number1 Status of Recovery Plan 

1 Under Development 

1 Partial Draft Completed 02/2006 (Washington); Under 

Development (Oregon) 

1 Draft Completed 10/2010 

1 Completed 10/2007 

1 Draft Completed 03/1995 (not adopted); Under 

Development 

1 Draft Completed 03/1995 (not adopted); Under 

Development 

1 Completed 10/2007 

1 Completed 09/2009 

1 Draft Completed 03/1995 (not adopted); Under 

Development 

3 Draft Completed 03/1995 (not adopted); Under 

Development 

1 Under Development 

1 Under Development 

1 Draft Completed 09/2009 

5 Under Development 

3 Under Development 

3 Under Development 

3 Under Development 

3 Draft Completed 07/2009 

6 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

Species/ESU/DPS 

-Sacramento River Winter-run Chinook ESU 

-Central Valley Spring-run Chinook ESU 

-California Central Valley steelhead DPS 

ATLANTIC SALMON 

Gulf of Maine DPS 

NON-SALMONID FISH 

Bocaccio – Puget Sound/Georgia Basin DPS 

Canary rockfish – Puget Sound/Georgia 

Basin DPS 

Eulachon – Southern DPS 

Green sturgeon – Southern DPS 

Gulf sturgeon 

Shortnose sturgeon 

Smalltooth sawfish – U.S. DPS 

Yelloweye rockfish – Puget 

Sound/Georgia Basin DPS 

PLANTS 

Johnson’s seagrass 

INVERTEBRATES 

Black abalone 

Elkhorn coral 

Staghorn coral 

White abalone 

Date Listed / 

Reclassified 

11/5/1990; 

1/4/19944; 

6/28/20052 

9/16/1999; 

6/28/20052 

3/19/1998; 

1/5/20062 

11/17/2000; 

6/19/2009 

4/28/2010 

4/28/2010 

3/18/2010 

4/7/2006 

9/30/1991 

3/11/1967 

4/1/2003 

4/28/2010 

9/14/1998 

1/14/2009 

5/9/2006 

5/9/2006 

5/29/2001 

ESA Status Population/ 

ESU Trend 

Endangered Stable or 

Increasing 

Threatened Stable or 

Increasing 

Threatened Unknown 

Endangered Declining 

Endangered Declining 

Threatened Declining 

Threatened Declining 

Threatened Unknown; 

likely Declining 

Threatened Stable 

Endangered Mixed 

Endangered Stable 

Threatened Declining 

Threatened Stable 

Endangered Declining 

Threatened Declining 

Threatened Declining 

Endangered Declining 

Recovery 

Priority 

Number1 

3 

7 

7 

1 

3 

7 

7 

5 

8 

5 

7 

7 

7 

3 

7 

7 

2 

Status of Recovery Plan 

Draft Completed 11/2009 

Draft Completed 11/2009 

Draft Completed 11/2009 

Completed 11/2005 

Expected to Begin in 2011 

Expected to Begin in 2011 

Expected to Begin in 2011 

Under Development 

Completed 09/1995 

Completed 12/1998 

Completed 01/2009 

Expected to Begin in 2011 

Completed 09/2002; Revision Under Development 

Expected to Begin in 2011 

Under Development 

Under Development 

Completed 10/2008 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Species/ESU/DPS 

SEALS AND SEA LIONS 

Guadalupe fur seal 

Hawaiian monk seal 

Steller sea lion – eastern DPS 

Steller sea lion – western DPS 

WHALES 

Beluga Whale – Cook Inlet DPS 

Blue whale 

Bowhead whale 

Fin whale 

Humpback whale 

Killer whale – Southern Resident DPS 

North Atlantic right whale 

North Pacific right whale 

Sei whale 

Sperm whale 

Date Listed / 

Reclassified 

12/16/1985 

11/23/1976 

4/5/1990; 

11/26/1990; 

5/5/19975 

4/5/1990; 

11/26/1990; 

5/5/19975 

10/22/2008 

6/2/1970 

6/2/1970 

6/2/1970 

6/2/1970 

11/18/2005 

6/2/1970; 

03/06/2008 

6/2/1970; 

03/06/2008 

6/2/1970 

6/2/1970 

ESA Status 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Population/ 

ESU Trend 

Increasing 

Declining 

Increasing 

Mixed 

Declining 

Unknown 

Increasing 

Unknown 

Increasing 

Declining 

Increasing 

Unknown 

Unknown 

Unknown 

Recovery 

Priority 

Number1 

10 

1 

10 

7 

2 

5 

7 

9 

5 

3 

1 

4 

11 

5 

Status of Recovery Plan 

None 

Completed 03/1983; 

Revision Completed 08/2007 

Completed 12/1992; 

Revision Completed 03/2008 

Completed 12/1992; 

Revision Completed 03/2008 

Under Development 

Completed 07/1998 

None 

Completed 07/2010 

Completed 11/1991 

Completed 01/2008 

Completed 05/2005 

None 

Draft Completed 08/2011 

Completed 12/2010 

1 Recovery Priority Numbers are designated according to guidelines published by NMFS on June 15, 1990 (55 FR 24296). Priorities are designated from 1 (high) to 12 (low) based on the following factors: 

degree of threat, recovery potential, and conflict with development projects or other economic activity. See Appendix A for further information on NMFS Recovery Priority Numbers, including criteria 

used to designate numbers. 2In Alsea Valley Alliance v. Evans, 161 F. Supp. 2d 1154 (D. Or. 2001) (Alsea), the U.S. District Court in Eugene, Oregon, ruled that NMFS could not exclude hatchery fish within the ESU when listing. Although 

the Alsea ruling affected only one ESU, subsequent to the ruling, NMFS initiated new status reviews for 27 ESUs and, in 2005, re-listed 15 ESUs of salmon with revised definitions of the populations to be 

included in the ESU, delisted one ESU (OR Coast coho) and listed one ESU (Lower Columbia River coho); and in 2006, re-listed 10 ESUs of steelhead (and called them DPSs). 3 This ESU was first listed on 8/18/1997; the southern range extension to the U.S.-Mexico border was added to the listing for this ESU via a final rule on 5/1/2002. 4 This ESU was first emergency-listed as threatened on 8/4/1989, then officially listed as threatened on 11/5/1990, then reclassified as endangered on 1/4/1994. 5 This species was first listed as threatened via a 240-day emergency rule on 4/5/1990, then officially listed as threatened in a final rule on 11/26/1990. NMFS separated the species into western and eastern 

DPSs via a final rule on 5/5/1997, which maintained the eastern DPS as threatened and reclassified the western DPS as endangered. 

8 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SEA TURTLE RECOVERY 

Overview 

NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) share responsibility for the conservation, management, 

and recovery of sea turtle species found in waters and lands under U.S. jurisdiction. Although both agencies 

work closely together on recovery activities, NMFS is primarily responsible for recovery actions in the marine 

environment and FWS is primarily responsible for recovery actions in the terrestrial environment (i.e., nesting 

beaches). Six species of sea turtles are listed under the ESA and targeted by NMFS recovery activities: green, 

leatherback, loggerhead, hawksbill, olive ridley, and Kemp’s ridley. Two regionally important DPSs are listed 

separately: (1) the green turtle breeding populations in Florida and on the Pacific Coast of Mexico and (2) the 

olive ridley turtle breeding populations on the Pacific Coast of Mexico. 

Threats 

Major threats to sea turtles in the United States include, but are not limited to: destruction and alteration of 

nesting and foraging habitats, incidental capture in commercial and recreational fisheries, disease, climate 

change, and vessel strikes. To reduce the incidental capture of sea turtles in commercial fisheries, NMFS has 

enacted regulations to restrict certain segments of U.S. commercial fisheries using gears that have 

documented sea turtle bycatch (e.g., trawls, longlines, gillnets, and pound nets). To effectively address all 

threats to sea turtles, NMFS and the FWS have developed recovery plans to direct research and management 

efforts for each sea turtle species. 

Sea Turtle Bycatch in the United States 

Incidental take in fishing operations, or bycatch, is one of the most serious threats to the recovery and 

conservation of sea turtle populations. To evaluate this threat, NMFS has instituted fishery observer 

programs in some fisheries to document sea turtle bycatch and has promulgated regulations to reduce sea 

turtle bycatch in certain Pacific, Atlantic, and Gulf of Mexico fisheries. 

In the Pacific, NMFS requires measures (e.g., gear modifications, changes to fishing practices, time/area 

closures, and allowable interaction limits) to reduce sea turtle bycatch in the Hawaii-based and U.S. west 

coast-based (deep set) longline fishery and the California drift gillnet fishery. 

In the Atlantic, NMFS has issued measures (e.g., gear modifications, changes to fishing practices, and 

time/area closures) to reduce sea turtle bycatch, and injuries associated with such bycatch, in pelagic longline, 

mid-Atlantic gillnet, Chesapeake Bay pound net, Atlantic sea scallop dredge, and Southeast shrimp and 

flounder trawl fisheries. In the southeast U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, NMFS has worked closely with 

the trawl fishing industry to develop turtle excluder devices (TEDs) to reduce the mortality of sea turtles 

incidentally captured in shrimp trawl gear. Large-opening TEDs are required in all shrimp trawl nets. 

In 2003, NMFS launched the Strategy for Sea Turtle Conservation and Recovery in Relation to Atlantic and 

Gulf of Mexico Fisheries to evaluate and address sea turtle bycatch comprehensively across jurisdictional (i.e., 

state and federal) and fishing sector (i.e., commercial and recreational) boundaries on a per-gear basis. Initial 

efforts are focused on non-shrimp trawl fisheries and a proposed rule to expand TED regulations into certain 

of these fisheries is under development. 

ESA Section 6 Funding 

A number of projects were funded by Species Recovery Grants to states and tribes (section 6) during FY 

2009–2010, including the coordination of Florida’s sea turtle stranding and salvage network and research, the 

coordination of the Massachusetts’s disentanglement network, research on sea turtles in Florida Bay and the 

eastern Gulf of Mexico, habitat and population assessments of marine turtle aggregations in Puerto Rican 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 9 
 

 

 

 

waters, necropsy and tissue collection in South Carolina, and research on the reproductive behavior in female 

loggerhead turtles in Georgia. 

International Sea Turtle Conservation 

The conservation and recovery of sea turtles requires multi-lateral cooperation and agreements to ensure the 

survival of these highly migratory animals. NMFS has a broad national and international program for the 

conservation and recovery of sea turtles—the goals of the international component of the sea turtle program 

are to facilitate the global conservation and recovery of sea turtles by working closely with other nations 

through diplomatic channels, capacity building, and scientific exchange. To do this, NMFS participates in 

globally significant international binding and non-binding instruments designed to facilitate international sea 

turtle conservation, such as the Inter-American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea 

Turtles, the Indian Ocean Southeast Asia Marine Turtle Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), and the 

Marine Turtle Action Plan of the Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environmental Program. In addition 

NMFS works through other bi-lateral and multi-lateral channels and organizations, participates and facilitates 

the recommendations, resolutions, and actions of Regional Fishery Management Organizations, and 

implements project-specific grants and outreach initiatives as tools to advance global sea turtle conservation. 

10 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Green Sea Turtle (Chelonia mydas) 

Date Listed: July 28, 1978 (43 FR 32800) 

Legal Status: 

Endangered (breeding colony populations in 

Florida and Pacific coast of Mexico) 

Threatened (rangewide except where listed as 

endangered) 

Recovery Plan Status:

Pacific: Two final recovery plans were 

approved on January 12, 1998; one for the 

East Pacific green turtle population and one 

for all other Pacific populations. 

Atlantic: A final recovery plan was approved 

on October 29, 1991. 

Species Status: An assessment of the 

annual number of nesting females from 

major nesting areas (and other beaches in the Pacific Ocean, Asian Seas, Indian Ocean, Mediterranean Sea, 

and Atlantic Ocean where quantitative data are available) indicates a decline by 48 to 67 percent over the past 

three generations. Currently there are four sites in the Pacific (Hawaii, Japan, and two sites in Australia— 

Raine and Heron Islands) and two sites in the Atlantic (Florida and Tortuguero, Costa Rica) with consistent 

long-term datasets whereby reliable conclusions can be generated about annual nesting trends. In the United 

States, the nesting populations in Hawaii (Figure 1) and Florida (Figure 2) have been documented as 

increasing over the past 20–30 years. Age at sexual maturity is estimated at between 30 and 50 years, and 

nesting females comprise only a small fraction of overall population size and status. Thus, caution is 

warranted when interpreting nesting data. 

Threats and Impacts: Threats and impacts 

in the marine environment affecting both the 

threatened rangewide populations and the 

endangered breeding populations of green 

turtles include the following: 

•	 Harvest of immature turtles and
 

adults: Direct harvest of East Pacific
 

green turtles has been documented
 

from as far north as Mexico, south
 

through Peru. In the West and
 

Central Pacific, direct harvest of
 

immature turtles and adults occurs
 

throughout the green turtle’s range,
 

including (although unauthorized) in
 

Hawaii and the U.S. flagged areas of
 

Guam, the Commonwealth of the
 

Northern Mariana Islands, and
 

American Samoa. A legal fishery for
 

green turtles also occurs in the
 

Caribbean and Nicaragua’s
 

Photo credit: NOAA 

Figure 1. Estimated number of female green turtles nesting at East
 

Island, French Frigate Shoals, Hawaiian Archipelago, 1973–2010.
 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 11 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 2. Number of green turtle nests documented on Florida core 

commercial turtle fishery is estimated to kill thousands of large juvenile and adult green turtles each 

year. 

•	 Incidental capture in domestic and international commercial, artisanal, and recreational fisheries: Fisheries known 

to interact with green turtles include gillnet, longline, hook and line, purse seine, pound net, trap/pot 

gear, dredge, set-net (or pound net), and trawl fisheries. 

•	 Marine debris and entanglement: Green turtles can ingest a wide variety of marine debris and effects 

include interference with digestion and metabolism, as well as absorption of toxic by-products. They 

can also become entangled in marine debris, such as “ghost” fishing gear. 

•	 Pollution: Point and non-point source pollution (e.g., pesticides, heavy metals, and polychlorinated 

biphenyls (PCBs)) in the marine environment have been detected in turtles and their eggs. 

•	 Disease: In Hawaii, the occurrence of fibropapilloma tumors is elevated in locations with chronic 

eutrophication and nuisance blooms of invasive macroalgae. 

•	 Vessel strikes: Especially in areas where recreational and/or commercial vessel traffic (small, medium, 

and/or large vessels) 

is intense, propeller 

and collision injuries 

are common. Vessel 

activities may also 

destroy or degrade 

habitat through 

anchoring, propeller 

scarring, and 

groundings. 

•	 Power plant 

entrainment and
 

entrapment, along
 

both the U.S. Atlantic
 

and Pacific coasts.
 

•	 Dredging and beach 

nourishment activities:
 

These activities can
 

result in marine
 

habitat destruction via both index beaches, 1989–2010.
 

direct and indirect effects, and
 

hopper dredges can entrain and kill turtles.
 

•	 Oil and gas exploration, development, and transportation: Underwater explosions (e.g., gas and oil structure 

removal and seismic exploration activities) can kill or injure turtles, and destroy or damage habitat. 

Sea turtles are also at risk when encountering oil or other petroleum products in the marine 

environment, as respiration, skin, blood chemistry, and salt gland functions may be affected. 

•	 Military activities: Military exercises in the marine environment may impact the migratory and foraging 

behavior of turtles and their habitats. 

•	 Global climate change and sea level rise may result in changes to nesting and foraging habitat (e.g., 

shoreline erosion, beach temperature changes), and hatching success rates. 

Conservation Actions: Major conservation actions conducted in 2008–2010 to advance recovery of the 

green turtle include the following: 

Pacific/Indian Ocean: 

•	 Continued to conduct population identification of bycaught, nesting, foraging, and stranded turtles 

through genetic analysis, flipper tagging, and satellite telemetry. 

•	 Identified habitat requirements using stable isotope analysis. 

12 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

•	 Continued U.S. fishery observer programs within the Exclusive Economic Zone as well as on the 

high seas to monitor, report, and estimate bycatch. 

•	 Continued vital population assessment work including genetic sampling and analysis of age classes. 

•	 Completed research to determine satellite transmitter drag for biotelemetry studies on turtles. 

•	 Continued to collaborate with foreign partners to export longline fishery technologies through 

education and outreach, a circle hook exchange program, and fishing gear experiments. Projects to 

date have occurred in Ecuador, Mexico, Guatemala, Costa Rica, Peru, Brazil, Columbia, Chile, 

Korea, Thailand, Japan, Philippines, Spain, Vietnam, Indonesia, and the Mediterranean. 

•	 Continued TED outreach, training, and capacity building efforts with various foreign governments. 

•	 Supported the development, completion, and dissemination of a Turtle Research Database System in 

collaboration with six international Pacific Ocean-based agencies. 

•	 Participated in the Indian Ocean MOU on the Conservation and Management of Marine Turtles of 

the Indian Ocean and Southeast Asia (IOSEA), and its associated Conservation and Management 

Plan (CMP), to provide a framework for the conservation of sea turtles and their habitats in the 

Indo-Pacific region. Led the development and negotiations to obtain agreement and passage of a 

[non-binding] international resolution dedicated to reducing bycatch of sea turtles. 

•	 Convened the fifth International Fishers Forum to review and promote the transfer of commercial 

longline bycatch reduction technology, and discuss coastal and marine spatial planning. 

•	 Completed an Options Paper and associated Analysis Matrix for members of the Secretariat of the 

Pacific Regional Environment Program (SPREP) to facilitate discussion, understanding, and final 

determination regarding a proposed Pacific-wide arrangement under the auspices of the Convention 

on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS). 

•	 Archived over 2,200 green turtle tissue samples in the Southwest Fisheries Science Center Molecular 

Research Sample Collection for use in a variety of population and trophic ecology studies. 

•	 Analyzed genetic samples from nesting and foraging animals with molecular markers (mtDNA and 

SNPs) to determine Pacific wide population stock structure, elucidate stock boundaries, and DPS 

structure. 

•	 Developed new molecular techniques (mitogenomics and SNPs) to determine green turtle population 

stock structure. 

•	 Supported development of quantitative methods for sea turtle management. 

•	 Established a state-of-the-art Stable Isotope Laboratory at the Southwest Fisheries Science Center, 

La Jolla, California. 

•	 Convened a workshop to develop ecosystem-based stock assessment approaches for sea turtles. 

Western and Central Pacific : 

•	 Assisted national observer programs and supported capacity building through in-country fishery 

observer training to improve sea turtle species identification, reporting, handling, and education. 

Projects to date have occurred in Papua New Guinea, Marshall Islands, Palau, Indonesia, Vietnam, 

New Caledonia, Fiji, and Cook Islands. 

•	 Continued long-term monitoring, research, and publication of results of the Hawaiian green turtle to 

identify potential causes and threats posed by fibropapillomatosis. 

•	 Continued to conduct long-term nesting beach monitoring in the Northwest Hawaiian Islands to 

evaluate population trends, and continued to collect and publish information on the biology and 

ecology of the Hawaiian green turtle population. 

•	 Continued to conduct long-term, spatially extensive, capture-mark-recapture programs at six coastal 

sites throughout the Hawaiian archipelago. 

•	 Continued to support the State of Hawaii to build programmatic capacity to assess the impact of 

nearshore recreational fisheries on sea turtle populations and work toward future development of a 

State’s CMP. 

•	 Continued to educate Hawaii-based longline fishery participants about sea turtle mitigation 

requirements including safe handling, gear removal, and release of turtles caught incidental to the 

fishery. 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 13 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

•	 Convened a workshop in Hawaii to assess needs and develop an education and outreach program as 

a platform to address: human disturbance from recreational activities, boating impacts (vessel strikes), 

nearshore recreational fishery interactions, misleading public perceptions, illegal harvest, and the 

dissemination of information. 

•	 Continued to support capacity building (including education and outreach initiatives) in American 

Samoa, Guam, and Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands for nesting beach and in-water 

monitoring to assess population trends and threats to sea turtles and their habitats. 

•	 Continued to support turtle nesting beach monitoring program and capacity building in the 

Federated States of Micronesia. 

•	 Continued to support in-water population assessment, genetic stock identification, and threat 

assessment of sea turtles at Palmyra Atoll. 

•	 Supported education and outreach initiatives and development of relevant school curriculum to 

promote conservation and management of sea turtles in the Marshall Islands. 

•	 Supported efforts to develop and test mitigation measures (escape mechanism) to reduce sea turtle 

bycatch in pound net fisheries in Japan. 

•	 Convened a “Historical Ecology and Biogeography” Workshop in Honolulu to interpret and analyze 

over 2,500 historical accounts (1700–1950) of green and hawksbill turtles in the Pacific Ocean. 

•	 Continued to facilitate the collection of genetic samples to assess the composition and stock 

structure of green turtles. 

•	 Continued to work within the context of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission 

(WCPFC) to modify and improve international bycatch mitigation requirements. 

•	 Evaluated relatedness among green turtle nests found on the main Hawaiian Islands using nuclear 

DNA analysis. 

•	 Estimated carrying capacity of green turtles nesting in French Frigate Shoals. 

Eastern Pacific : 

•	 Continued trophic ecology identification of green turtles in the eastern Pacific. 

•	 Continued long-term monitoring and tracking of resident green turtles in south San Diego Bay, 

California to collect life history data and determine population abundance, habitat use, population 

structure, and trophic ecology. 

•	 Initiated long-term monitoring study of resident green turtles in the San Gabriel River, Long Beach, 

California to collect life history data and determine population abundance, population structure, 

trophic ecology, and habitat use. 

•	 Supported a longline fishery observer program and sea turtle handling and resuscitation workshops 

in Peru. 

•	 Supported an observer program to collect sea turtle-fisheries information and sea turtle tissue 

samples from coastal artisanal driftnet fisheries and commercial longline fisheries interactions in 

Chile. 

•	 Supported education and community outreach efforts to reduce illegal harvest, fisheries bycatch, and 

mortality of sea turtles along the Baja California peninsula of Mexico. 

•	 Supported research into methods to reduce sea turtle bycatch in the Mexican halibut gillnet fishery in 

Baja California, including a series of tests with illuminated fishing gear. 

•	 Conducted skipper workshops to educate commercial fishermen on sea turtle identification and 

biology, and handling and resuscitation requirements. 

•	 Supported education program in San Diego Bay, California geared towards educating elementary 

school students about sea turtle conservation. 

Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico: 

•	 Identified population structure of nesting turtles using DNA analysis, flipper tagging, and satellite 

telemetry and habitat requirements using stable isotope analysis. 

•	 Conducted population identification of bycaught, foraging, and stranded turtles using DNA analysis, 

flipper tagging, and satellite telemetry. 

14 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

•	 Supported in-water population studies in the Atlantic and Caribbean to provide indices of turtle 

abundance and to gather life history data. 

•	 Continued coordination and support of the Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network (STSSN) in 

the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, including cold stun response. NMFS worked with Florida state 

partners and the STSSN to respond to a massive cold stunning event in January 2010, in FL, which 

impacted over 4,600 turtles, the majority were green turtles. 

•	 Convened workshop to discuss watercraft related injuries in sea turtles, including standardizations of 

data collection and identification of priorities and management needs. 

•	 Continued coordination and support for the operation and training for the Sea Turtle 

Disentanglement Network in the Atlantic Northeast Region to address sea turtle entanglement in pot 

and other fishing gear. 

•	 Developed and tested gear technologies to reduce sea turtle bycatch, including modifications to 

scallop dredges. 

•	 Conducted an inspection program for modified pound net leaders in the Chesapeake Bay to ensure 

gear is consistent with sea turtle requirements. Coordinated with the Commonwealth of Virginia and 

Bottlenose Dolphin Take Reduction Team to expand modified pound net leader regulations. 

•	 Continued and expanded fishery observer programs, including the U.S. longline fishery, to monitor, 

report, and estimate green turtle bycatch. 

•	 Continued gear research to develop TEDs suitable for use in non-shrimp trawl fisheries such as the 

flynet, whelk, summer flounder, scallop, and sciaenid bottom trawl fisheries, as well as testing 

modifications for shrimp trawl TEDs. 

•	 Continued TED outreach and training efforts with various foreign governments. 

•	 Conducted observations on Core Sounds, NC gillnet fisheries and determined need for protective 

measures for sea turtles from those fisheries. 

•	 Convened a workshop to review progress on TED gear research and discuss direction for future 

research in mid-Atlantic trawl fisheries. 

•	 Convened a workshop to discuss sea turtle injuries in northeast fisheries and develop guidance to 

evaluate post-release mortality from such injuries. Identified a list of commercial fisheries in state and 

Federal waters that will be required to take observers upon NMFS’ request. 

•	 Conduct observer training workshops in West Africa to determine sea turtle bycatch in local
 

fisheries.
 

•	 Provide scientific and technical advice on sea turtle nesting beach and bycatch projects in West 

Africa. 

•	 Develop a sea turtle research and conservation strategy for the South Atlantic. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: Priority recovery actions needed for the green sea turtle include the 

following: 

•	 Maintain current U.S. monitoring and support education and outreach programs to reduce the direct 

take of eggs and nesting turtles, and the direct take of juvenile and adult green turtles in their foraging 

habitats. 

•	 Support and encourage nations to develop and implement management measures to reduce and 

eliminate sea turtle interactions with commercial, artisanal, and recreational fisheries. 

 Support the use of large circle hooks in global longline fisheries and continue to identify other 

gear modifications and fishing practices to reduce turtle bycatch in longline fisheries. 

	 Implement regulations in the United States requiring the use of TEDs, and encourage 

international uptake and use of TEDs, or other measures that provide comparable or greater 

protection, in trawl fisheries known to incidentally capture sea turtles. 

•	 Support and encourage nations in monitoring efforts to assess sea turtle interactions in pelagic and 

coastal fisheries. 

•	 Build capacity in foreign nations to establish and maintain conservation, research, and monitoring 

programs, and encourage efforts to strengthen legislation through enforcement and education. 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 15 
 

 

 

•	 Further identify population structure of green turtle nesting populations in the South Pacific region 

including in-water mixed stock analysis of foraging populations. 

Recovery Priority Number: 5 (Breeding Colony Populations in Florida and Pacific coast of Mexico);
 

5 (Rangewide)
 

The recovery priority number for the green sea turtle is 5. This represents a moderate magnitude of threat, a
 

high recovery potential, and the presence of conflict with economic activities.
 

16 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hawksbill Sea Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) 

Date Listed: June 2, 1970 (35 FR 8491) 

Legal Status: Endangered 

Recovery Plan Status:

Pacific: A final recovery plan was approved
 

on January 12, 1998.
 

Atlantic: A final recovery plan was approved
 

on December 15, 1993.
 

Species Status: The hawksbill sea turtle is 

severely depleted throughout its range as a 

result of decades of intensive harvest. 

Today, most nesting populations continue 

to decline, a few appear stable (Buck Island 

Reef National Monument, U.S. Virgin 

Islands), and a few appear to be increasing 

(Mona Island, Puerto Rico) as a result of 

years of intensive conservation efforts. Major causes of the continued decline 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 carapace, and destruction and degradation of nesting habitat and coral reef 

habitats that provide critically important foraging and resting areas. Baseline nesting demography, population 

status, trends, and genetic information is lacking throughout the species’ range in the Western and South 

Pacific. 

Threats and Impacts: Threats and impacts in the marine environment affecting hawksbill turtles include 

the following: 

•	 Direct take of all life stages. 

•	 Destruction and degradation of habitat: Hawksbills depend heavily on coral reefs for shelter and food. 

•	 Dredging: Dredging can result in marine habitat destruction via both direct and indirect effects. 

•	 Marine debris and entanglement: Hawksbill turtles ingest a wide variety of marine debris, and effects 

include interference with metabolism as well as absorption of toxic by-products. Turtles can also 

become entangled in marine debris, such as “ghost” fishing gear. 

•	 Incidental capture in domestic and international, commercial and recreational fishing gear, including 

driftnets, seines, trawls, longlines, trap/pots, hook and line, and gillnets. 

•	 Vessel strikes: Especially in areas where recreational and/or commercial vessel traffic (small, medium, 

and/or large vessels) is intense, propeller and collision injuries are not uncommon. Vessel activities 

may also destroy or degrade habitat through anchoring, propeller scarring, and groundings. 

•	 Oil and gas exploration, development, and transportation: Underwater explosions (e.g., gas and oil structure 

removal and seismic exploration activities) can kill or injure turtles, and may destroy or damage 

habitat. Sea turtles are also at risk when encountering oil or other petroleum products in the marine 

environment, as respiration, skin, blood chemistry, and salt gland functions may be affected. 

•	 Pollution: Point and non-point source pollution (e.g., pesticides, heavy metals, and PCBs) in the 

marine environment have been detected in turtles and their eggs. 

•	 Global climate change and sea level rise may result in changes to nesting and foraging habitat (e.g., 

shoreline erosion, beach temperature changes), and hatching success rates. 

Photo credit: NOAA 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 17 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Conservation Actions: Conservation actions conducted in 2008–2010 for recovery of the hawksbill turtle 

include the following: 

Pacific/Indian Ocean: 

•	 Supported the development, completion, and dissemination of a Turtle Research Database System in 

collaboration with six international agencies. 

 Convened the fifth International Fishers Forum to review and promote the transfer of 

commercial longline bycatch reduction technology, and discuss coastal and marine spatial 

planning. 

•	 Continued TED outreach and training efforts with various foreign governments. 

•	 Collaborated with foreign partners to export longline fishery technologies through education and 

outreach, circle hook exchange program, and fishing gear experiments. Projects to date have 

occurred in Ecuador, Mexico, Guatemala, Costa Rica, Peru, Brazil, Columbia, Chile, Korea, Thailand, 

Japan, Philippines, Spain, Vietnam, and Indonesia. 

•	 Archived over 550 hawksbill turtle tissue samples in the Southwest Fisheries Science Center 

Molecular Research Sample Collection for use in a variety of eastern and western Pacific population 

structure and trophic ecology studies. 

•	 Analyzed genetic samples from nesting animals with molecular markers (mtDNA) to establish 

baseline for Pacific wide population stock structure. 

•	 Convened a workshop to develop ecosystem-based stock assessment approaches for sea turtles. 

•	 Identified a list of commercial fisheries in state and Federal waters that will be required to take 

observers upon NMFS’ request. 

Western and Central Pacific : 

•	 Participated in the Indian Ocean MOU on the Conservation and Management of Marine Turtles of 

the IOSEA, and its associated CMP, to provide a similar comprehensive framework for the 

conservation and protection of sea turtles and their habitats in the Indo-Pacific region. Led the 

development and negotiations to obtain agreement and passage of a resolution dedicated to reducing 

bycatch of sea turtles. 

•	 Assisted national observer programs and supported capacity building through in-country fishery 

observer training to improve sea turtle species identification, reporting, handling, and education. 

Projects to date have occurred in Papua New Guinea, Indonesia, Vietnam, Marshall Islands, Palau, 

New Caledonia, Fiji, and Cook Islands. 

•	 Continued to convene an Annual Hawaii Hawksbill Turtle Recovery Implementation meeting 

amongst all federal, state, and non-governmental organization stakeholders. 

•	 Continued to support nesting beach monitoring, genetic sampling and analysis, and mitigation 

activities to remove non-native predators of eggs and hatchlings and invasive plants impacting 

nesting habitats. 

•	 Published satellite and radio telemetry studies of post-nesting females in the main Hawaiian Islands. 

•	 Supported efforts in Maui to disseminate educational information and organize existing data since 

1991 of foraging hawksbill turtles for population assessment, identification of habitats and 

anthropogenic impacts, and recovery planning. 

•	 Continued to support capacity building in American Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the 

Northern Marianas Islands for nesting beach and in-water monitoring to assess population trends 

and threats to sea turtles and their habitats. 

•	 Continued to support turtle monitoring program and capacity building in the Federated States of 

Micronesia. 

•	 Continued to support in-water population assessment, genetic stock identification, and threat 

assessment of sea turtles at Palmyra Atoll. 

•	 Supported education and outreach initiatives and development of relevant school curriculum to 

promote conservation and management capacity in the Marshall Islands. 

18 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

•	 Convened a “Historical Ecology and Biogeography” Workshop in Honolulu to interpret and analyze 

over 2,500 historical accounts (dating 1700-1950) of greens and hawksbills in the Pacific Ocean. 

•	 Continued to facilitate the collection of genetic samples to assess the composition and stock
 

structure of hawksbill turtles.
 

•	 Continued to work within the context of the WCPFC to modify and improve international bycatch 

mitigation requirements. 

Eastern Pacific : 

•	 Convened the 2nd Data Gathering Workshop for Eastern Pacific Hawksbill Turtles in Padre Ramos, 

Nicaragua with sea turtle specialists from Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, 

Costa Rica, Ecuador, Colombia, Panama, Peru, and the United States to compile current scientific 

knowledge on this endangered species, identify priority sites and principal threats, consolidate 

multinational alliances and projects for conservation, and establish conservation goals. 

•	 Conducted educational outreach and capacity building efforts in Mexico, Costa Rica, El Salvador, 

and Ecuador to promote local and regional sea turtle conservation. 

•	 Liaised with Subsecretary of Fisheries in Ecuador (one of the most important countries for hawksbill 

nesting in the Eastern Pacific) to discuss sea turtle bycatch reduction, national conservation 

legislation and enforcement of existing laws and regulations regarding the protection of marine 

turtles. 

•	 Supported and collaborated with Ecuador to deploy transmitters on adult female hawksbills in the 

eastern Pacific to determine habitat use, migratory movements, and stock boundaries. 

Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico: 

•	 Supported satellite telemetry studies to investigate migration patterns and habitat use of hawksbills in 

the Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico. 

•	 Supported standardized index in-water surveys to monitor hawksbill populations in the wider 

Caribbean (e.g., Pearl Cays, Nicaragua). 

•	 Re-examined population structure of nesting turtles in the U.S. Virgin Islands, Costa Rica, Mexico, 

Barbados, Antigua, Nicaragua, Puerto Rico, Cuba, and Guadeloupe using improved DNA analysis 

techniques. Continued gear research to develop TEDs suitable for use in non-shrimp trawl fisheries 

such as the flynet, whelk, summer flounder, scallop, and sciaenid bottom trawl fisheries, as well as 

testing modifications for shrimp trawl TEDs. 

•	 Continued TED outreach and training efforts with various foreign governments. 

•	 Identified a list of commercial fisheries in state and Federal waters that will be required to take 

observers upon NMFS’ request. 

•	 Convened a workshop to review progress on TED gear research and discuss direction for future 

research in mid-Atlantic trawl fisheries. 

•	 Convened a workshop to discuss sea turtle injuries in northeast fisheries and develop guidance to 

evaluate post-release mortality from such injuries. 

•	 Conduct observer training workshops in West Africa to determine sea turtle bycatch in local
 

fisheries.
 

•	 Provide scientific and technical advice on sea turtle nesting beach and bycatch projects in West 

Africa. 

•	 Develop a sea turtle research and conservation strategy for the South Atlantic. 

•	 Continued coordination and support of the STSSN in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. 

•	 Continued and expanded fishery observer programs to monitor, report, and estimate hawksbill turtle 

bycatch. 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 19 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: Priority recovery actions needed for the hawksbill sea turtle include 

the following: 

•	 Maintain current U.S. monitoring and educational outreach programs. 

•	 Encourage foreign nations to reduce and eliminate the direct harvest of hawksbill turtles and eggs 

through capacity building, education, strengthening of in-country legislation, and law enforcement 

efforts. 

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

share U.S. hawksbill stocks. 

•	 Determine population size, status, and trends through long-term regular nesting beach and in-water 

censuses. 

•	 Identify stock home ranges and foraging/stranding population contributions using DNA analysis. 

•	 Identify and protect primary nesting and foraging areas. 

•	 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) and restore 

nesting habitats (e.g., remove invasive plant species) in Hawaii. 

•	 Reduce incidental mortalities of hawksbill turtles by commercial, artisanal, and recreational fisheries. 

Recovery Priority Number: 1 

The recovery priority number for the hawksbill sea turtle is 1. This represents a high magnitude of threat, a 

high recovery potential, and the presence of conflict with economic activities. 

20 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle (Lepidochelys kempii) 

Date Listed: December 2, 1970 

(35 FR 18319) 

Legal Status: Endangered 

Recovery Plan Status: A final recovery 

plan for the Kemp’s ridley turtle was 

approved on August 21, 1992. A revised 

plan is currently under development. 

Species Status: The only major nesting 

sites for Kemp’s ridley are in Mexico in the 

state of Tamaulipas, with the majority of 

nesting occurring along the coast at Rancho 

Nuevo. Although still significantly 

decreased in number from the mid-20th 

century, the trend in the number of nests 

documented at the Mexican nesting beaches 

has been increasing over the past decade, with 17,882 nests documented in 2008 (Figure 3). A small nesting 

assemblage is also found in the United States, primarily in Texas—6 nests were documented in 1996 and a 

record 195 nests were documented in 2008. As a result of intensive bi-lateral conservation efforts, including 

full protection of nesting females and their eggs in Mexico, and implementation of turtle excluder device 

requirements in the U.S. shrimp trawl fishery, there is cautious optimism that the Kemp’s ridley population is 

in the early stages of recovery. 

Photo credit: Wendy Teas, NOAA 

0 

5000 

10000 

15000 

20000 

25000 

30000 

35000 

40000 

45000 

194719781980198219841986198819901992199419961998200020022004200620082010 

NUMBER OF NESTS 

YEAR 

Kemp's Ridley Nesting Trends 

An estimated 40,000 nesting females nested 

on a single day in 1947. 

Figure 3. Kemp’s ridley nesting trends in Mexico, 1978–2010. The 1947 point is a single reference 

point representing nesting females on a single day, the total nests over the entire 1947 season is believed 

to be much higher. 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 21 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Threats and Impacts in the Marine Environment: Threats and impacts found in the marine environment 

affecting Kemp’s ridley turtles include the following: 

•	 Interactions with domestic and international, commercial and recreational fishing gear, including 

trawls, longline, purse seines, pound nets, traps and pots, hook and line, dredges, and gillnets. 

•	 Marine debris and entanglement: Kemp’s ridley turtles can ingest a wide variety of marine debris, and 

effects include interference with metabolism as well as absorption of toxic by-products. They can 

also become entangled in marine debris, such as “ghost” fishing gear. 

•	 Vessel strikes: Especially in areas where recreational and/or commercial vessel traffic (small, medium, 

and/or large vessels) is intense, propeller and collision injuries are not uncommon. 

•	 Power plant entrainment and entrapment: Kemp’s ridleys can become entrained and entrapped primarily 

along the U.S. Atlantic coast. 

•	 Prey limitation: Overfishing may lead to a reduction of key prey species preferred by Kemp’s ridleys. 

•	 Dredging: Dredging can result in marine habitat destruction via both direct and indirect effects and 

hopper dredges can entrain and kill turtles. 

•	 Oil production: Sea turtles are at risk when encountering an oil spill, as respiration, skin, blood 

chemistry, and salt gland functions are affected. 

•	 Pesticides, heavy metals, and PCBs: These materials and substances have been detected in turtles and 

eggs, but their effect is unknown. 

•	 Oil and gas exploration, development, and transportation: Underwater explosions (e.g., gas and oil structure 

removal and use of explosives during exploration activities) can kill or injure turtles, and may destroy 

or damage habitat. Sea turtles are also at risk when encountering oil or other petroleum products in 

the marine environment, as respiration, skin, blood chemistry, and salt gland functions may be 

affected. 

•	 Marina and dock development: Marina and dock development can destroy or degrade foraging habitat as 

well as lead to increased boat traffic, thus increasing the risk of collisions. 

•	 Global climate change and sea level rise may result in changes to nesting and foraging habitat (e.g., 

shoreline erosion, beach temperature changes), and hatching success rates. 

Conservation Actions: Conservation actions conducted in 2008–2010 for recovery of the Kemp’s ridley 

turtle include the following: 

•	 Identified population structure of nesting females and hatchlings at Padre Island, Texas using DNA 

analysis. 

•	 Continued coordination and support of the STSSN in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. 

•	 Continued collection of samples for analysis at the National Sea Turtle Aging Laboratory. 

•	 Supported infrastructure maintenance, stranding surveys, and provided monitoring equipment for 

the Mexican component of the Kemp’s ridley conservation program. 

•	 Supported research on in situ versus relocated nests to guide future conservation efforts. 

•	 Archived over 650 Kemp’s ridley turtle tissue samples in the Southwest Fisheries Science Center 

Molecular Research Sample Collection for use in population structure and demographic studies. 

•	 Continued and expanded fishery observer programs to monitor, report, and estimate Kemp’s ridley 

bycatch. 

•	 Conducted an inspection program for modified pound net leaders in the Chesapeake Bay to ensure 

gear is consistent with sea turtle requirements. Coordinated with the Commonwealth of Virginia and 

Bottlenose Dolphin Take Reduction Team to expand modified pound net leader regulations. 

•	 Supported in-water population studies in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. 

•	 Identified a list of commercial fisheries in state and Federal waters that will be required to take 

observers upon NMFS’ request. 

•	 Convened workshop to discuss watercraft related injuries in sea turtles, including standardizations of 

data collection and identification of priorities and management needs. 

•	 Convened a workshop to review progress on TED gear research and discuss direction for future 

research in mid-Atlantic trawl fisheries. 

22 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

•	 Convened a workshop to discuss sea turtle injuries in northeast fisheries and develop guidance to 

evaluate post-release mortality from such injuries. 

•	 Developed and tested gear technologies to reduce sea turtle bycatch including modifications to 

scallop dredges and conducted research on TEDs suitable for use in non-shrimp trawl fisheries. 

•	 Participated in in-water sea turtle recovery efforts during the Deep Water Horizon oil spill. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: Priority recovery actions needed for the Kemp’s ridley sea turtle 

include the following: 

•	 Minimize commercial fishery bycatch and mortality of Kemp’s ridley. 

•	 Support Mexico in its conservation efforts on primary nesting beaches and build capacity for 

expansion of in-water conservation and research efforts. 

•	 Improve and refine estimation techniques for the takes of sea turtles to ensure that criteria for 

recovery are being met. 

•	 Continue and improve population assessments, including in-water studies of population size and 

structure. 

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

•	 Identify important marine habitats. 

•	 Improve understanding of the effects of commercial fishery harvest on key prey species. 

Recovery Priority Number: 5 

The recovery priority number for the Kemp’s ridley sea turtle is 5. This represents a moderate magnitude of 

threat, a high recovery potential, and the presence of conflict with economic activities. 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 23 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leatherback Sea Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) 

Date Listed: June 2, 1970 (35 FR 8491) 

Legal Status: Endangered 

Recovery Plan Status:

Pacific: A final recovery plan was approved on 

January 12, 1998.
 

Atlantic: A final recovery plan was approved
 

on April 6, 1992.
 

Species Status: Leatherback turtles are 

endangered throughout their global range. 

There are two populations in the Pacific, a 

Western Pacific population that nests in 

Indonesia (Papua Barat), Papua New Guinea, 

Solomon Islands and Vanuatu, and an 

Eastern Pacific population that nests in 

Mexico and Costa Rica. The Western Pacific 

population harbors the last remaining nesting aggregations of significant size in the Pacific with an estimated 

2700–4500 breeding females. This population has been monitored sporadically over time; however, the past 

decade demarcates an era of discovery and implementation of both research and conservation initiatives with 

increasing involvement by stakeholders. While there has been overall long-term population decline, the 

Indonesian nesting aggregation at Jamursba-Medi is currently stable (since 1999), although there is growing 

evidence to suggest a significant and continued decline in leatherback turtle nesting abundance in Papua New 

Guinea and Solomon Islands over the past 30 years. Predation by pigs and dogs as well as continued direct 

harvest of eggs and turtles, beach erosion, and low hatch success remain significant impacts to the Western 

Pacific population. Leatherbacks were extirpated from Malaysia within the past decade or more. Research 

conducted by NMFS has indicated that leatherbacks from the Western Pacific population use areas off of the 

U.S. West Coast as key foraging sites. The Eastern Pacific population used to host the worlds’ largest 

leatherback nesting population, which has now been reduced to less than 250 females nesting annually. The 

population has been regularly monitored over the past decade through nesting beach surveys and a hatchling 

relocation program at 4 major sites in Mexico that support 50 percent of all nesting in the Eastern Pacific. 

The potential for Pacific-basin wide leatherback extirpation remains significant. Conversely, in the Atlantic, 

leatherback nesting populations are increasing on U.S. beaches and are generally increasing elsewhere in the 

western north Atlantic, with the exception of Atlantic coastal sites of Costa Rica. 

Threats and Impacts: Threats and impacts found in the marine environment affecting leatherback turtles 

include the following: 

•	 Incidental capture in both domestic and international commercial and artisanal fisheries: Including drift and fixed 

gillnet, longline, purse seine, trap and pot, pound net, and trawl fisheries. 

•	 Vessel strikes: Especially in areas where recreational and/or commercial vessel traffic (small, medium, 

and/or large vessels) is intense—propeller and collision injuries are not uncommon. 

•	 Marine debris and entanglement: Leatherbacks can ingest a wide variety of marine debris (such as plastic 

bags) and effects include direct effects as well as secondary effects such as interference with digestion 

and metabolism, as well as absorption of toxic by-products. Turtles can become entangled in marine 

debris, such as “ghost” fishing gear and discarded shipping and packing materials. 

•	 Oil and gas exploration, development, and transportation: Underwater explosions (e.g., gas and oil structure 

removal and seismic exploration activities) can kill or injure turtles, and may destroy or damage 

habitat. Sea turtles are also at risk when encountering oil or other petroleum products in the marine 

environment, as respiration, skin, blood chemistry, and salt gland functions may be affected. 

Photo credit: NOAA 

24 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

•	 Military activities: Various short-term and long-term military exercises in the marine environment may 

impact the migratory and foraging behavior of turtles and their habitats. 

•	 Illegal harvest of juveniles and adults. 

•	 Habitat destruction and degradation due to development and tourism. 

•	 Global climate change and sea level rise may result in changes to nesting and foraging habitat (e.g., 

shoreline erosion, beach temperature changes), and hatching success rates. 

Conservation Actions: Conservation actions conducted in 2008–2010 for recovery of the leatherback turtle 

include the following: 

Pacific/Indian Ocean: 

•	 Identified population home ranges and conducted population identification of nesting, foraging, 

stranded, and bycaught turtles using DNA analysis and other tools. 

•	 Conducted stable isotope analyses of leatherback soft tissues to determine habitat use and foraging 

strategies of leatherbacks in the Eastern and Western Pacific. 

•	 Evaluated leatherback turtle population trends and designed and evaluated conservation strategies via 

stochastic simulation models. 

•	 Continued to provide technical, scientific, and management support to Pacific-wide leatherback turtle 

projects. 

•	 Supported the development, completion, and dissemination of a Turtle Research Database System in 

collaboration with six international agencies. 

•	 Continued to promote and investigate options to encourage sustainable financing mechanisms for 

long-term maintenance of leatherback turtle monitoring and conservation programs. 

•	 Completed research to determine satellite transmitter drag for biotelemetry studies on turtles. 

•	 Conducted a pilot aerial survey study to assess marine habitat use, migratory corridors, and threats of 

leatherback turtles in the Sulu Sulawesis Sea based on the results of post-nesting migrations of 

satellite tracked turtles from Indonesia. 

•	 Continued to promote “best practices” in the major longline fleets operating in the Pacific. 

•	 Continued to manage leatherback interaction and mortality rates in U.S. Pacific longline fleets by 

requiring large circle hooks combined with non-squid bait; requiring proper handling techniques of 

hooked and entangled leatherbacks; and use of disentangling and de-hooking equipment such as dip 

nets, line cutters, and de-hookers. 

•	 Continued to collaborate with foreign partners to export longline fishery technologies through 

education and outreach, circle hook exchange program, and fishing gear experiments to test longline 

fishing gear modifications to reduce bycatch and mortality. 

•	 Convened the fifth International Fishers Forum to review and promote the transfer of commercial 

longline bycatch reduction technology, and discuss coastal and marine spatial planning. 

•	 Identified a list of commercial fisheries in state and Federal waters that will be required to take 

observers upon NMFS’ request. 

•	 Convened a workshop to develop ecosystem-based stock assessment approaches for sea turtles. 

•	 Archived over 12,500 leatherback turtle tissue samples in the Southwest Fisheries Science Center 

Molecular Research Sample Collection for use in a variety of population structure, demographic, and 

trophic ecology studies. 

•	 Analyzed genetic samples from nesting and foraging animals with molecular markers (to determine 

Pacific wide population stock structure). 

•	 Continued development of new molecular techniques (mitogenomics and SNPs) to determine 

leatherback turtle population stock structure. 

•	 Supported development of quantitative methods for sea turtle management. 

•	 Established a state-of-the-art Stable Isotope Laboratory at the Southwest Fisheries Science Center, 

La Jolla, California. 

•	 Continued TED outreach and training efforts with various foreign governments. 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 25 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Western and Central Pacific : 

•	 Participated in the Indian Ocean MOU on the Conservation and Management of Marine Turtles of 

the IOSEA, and its associated CMP, to provide a similar comprehensive framework for the 

conservation and protection of sea turtles and their habitats in the Indo-Pacific region. Led the 

development and negotiations to obtain [non-binding] agreement and passage of a resolution 

dedicated to reducing bycatch of sea turtles. 

•	 Continued to educate the Hawaii- and U.S west coast-based longline, ETP purse seine and California 

drift gillnet fishery participants about sea turtle mitigation requirements including safe handling, gear 

removal, resuscitation, and release of turtles caught incidental to the fisheries. 

•	 Continued to assist national observer programs and supported capacity building through in-country 

fishery observer training to improve sea turtle species identification, reporting, handling, and 

education regarding fishery mitigation techniques. Projects to date have occurred in Palau, Indonesia, 

Vietnam, PNG, Solomon Islands, Marshal Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Cook 

Islands, and New Caledonia. 

•	 Continued to draft a NMFS Western Pacific Leatherback Action Plan. 

•	 Continued to support monitoring and protection of leatherback nesting beaches in the western 

Pacific, including education of local villagers on the importance of conservation of leatherbacks in 

Papua New Guinea, Indonesia, Solomon Islands, and Vanuatu. 

•	 Provided scientific and technical oversight to projects, collaborated with local academics, and 

implemented nesting beach management measures to bolster hatchling production. 

•	 Convened Western Pacific Leatherback Working Group Meetings. 

•	 Convened a Sea Turtle Training Course in Trinidad which was attended by western Pacific and 

Atlantic leatherback turtle program staff. 

•	 Conducted socio-economic research on the costs and benefits of various conservation strategies for 

Pacific leatherback turtles to help evaluate cost-effectiveness of leatherback conservation programs in 

the Western Pacific and to understand the impacts of conservation projects on local community 

stakeholders. 

•	 Supported an exploratory expedition to Bougainville Island, PNG to assess and ground truth 

leatherback turtle nesting activity. 

•	 Attached satellite tags to leatherbacks in Indonesia to gather information regarding migratory 

movements and pelagic habitat use. 

•	 Continued to work within the context of the WCPFC to modify and improve international bycatch 

mitigation requirements. 

•	 Conducted capacity building and joint collaborative efforts for leatherback nesting research and 

conservation in Papua, Indonesia. 

•	 Continued planning for a second workshop on swordfish and leatherback use of temperate habitat 

(SLUTH) along the U.S. west coast with scientists, fisheries managers, conservationists, and fishers 

to identify information gaps, exchange ideas, and develop a new cooperative initiative to integrate 

fisheries management and protected resources conservation. 

•	 Conducted monitoring (aerial surveys) for foraging leatherbacks off central and northern California. 

•	 Conducted capture, tagging, genetic, stable isotope, and health assessment sampling, and satellite 

tracking of foraging leatherbacks off central California. 

•	 Conducted aerial and ship-based surveys to identify foraging hotspots for leatherbacks off of the 

coast of Oregon and Washington. 

•	 Described the distribution and abundance of leatherback turtles within the coastal California 

ecosystem. 

•	 Increased the capacity of the California stranding network to respond and necropsy dead leatherback 

turtles and assess the health of live-caught foraging leatherbacks off central California. 

26 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Eastern Pacific: 

•	 Supported monitoring and protection of leatherbacks nesting in Mexico. 

•	 Supported a longline fishery observer program and sea turtle handling and resuscitation workshops 

in Peru. 

•	 Supported the collection of biological samples from stranded and bycaught leatherback sea turtles in 

Peru through outreach with fishermen and governmental agencies. 

•	 Supported an observer program to collect sea turtle-fisheries information and sea turtle tissue 

samples from coastal artisanal driftnet fisheries and commercial longline fisheries interactions in 

Chile. 

Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico: 

•	 Conducted population identification of bycaught, foraging, and stranded turtles using DNA analysis, 

flipper tagging, and satellite telemetry. 

•	 Supported research to assess the health of wild caught leatherback turtles in the western North 

Atlantic. 

•	 Continued coordination and support of the STSSN in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. 

•	 Continued coordination and support, including training, for the Sea Turtle Disentanglement 

Network in the Northwest Atlantic to address sea turtle entanglement in pot and other fishing gear. 

•	 Held a bilateral meeting to coordinate with Canada on sea turtle stranding, disentanglement, and 

conservation activities and worked cooperatively with Canada to identify and address threats to 

leatherback turtles and areas of ongoing and future research. 

•	 Supported research to investigate leatherback movements and behavior along the U.S. Atlantic coast. 

•	 Convened a workshop to review progress on TED gear research and discuss direction for future 

research in mid-Atlantic trawl fisheries. 

•	 Conducted an inspection program for modified pound net leaders in the Chesapeake Bay to ensure 

gear is consistent with sea turtle requirements. Worked with the Commonwealth of Virginia and 

Bottlenose Dolphin Take Reduction Team to expand modified pound net leader regulations. 

•	 Continued gear research to develop TEDs suitable for use in non-shrimp trawl fisheries such as the 

flynet, whelk, summer flounder, scallop, and sciaenid bottom trawl fisheries, as well as testing 

modifications for shrimp trawl TEDs. 

•	 Continued TED outreach and training efforts with various foreign governments. 

•	 Continued fishery observer programs to monitor, report, and estimate leatherback bycatch. 

•	 Identified a list of commercial fisheries in state and Federal waters that will be required to take 

observers upon NMFS’ request. 

•	 Convened a workshop to discuss sea turtle injuries in northeast fisheries and develop guidance to 

evaluate post-release mortality from such injuries. 

•	 Supported nesting beach monitoring of leatherbacks at St. Croix, USVI. 

•	 Collected and analyzed genetic samples from nesting females and hatchlings at St. Croix, USVI to 

determine critical life history parameters, including age at first reproduction and juvenile survival 

rates. 

•	 Conducted observer training workshops in West Africa to determine sea turtle bycatch in local 

fisheries. 

•	 Provided scientific and technical advice on sea turtle nesting beach and bycatch projects in West 

Africa. 

•	 Developed a sea turtle research and conservation strategy for the South Atlantic. 

•	 Evaluated the primary sex ratios and stable isotope values of leatherbacks nesting in Gabon, Central 

Africa. 

•	 Characterized juvenile leatherback habitat in Sao Tome and Principe. 

•	 Conducted a preliminary survey of the Angolan coastline to determine leatherback nesting areas. 

•	 Convened a Leatherback Turtle Expert Working Group with national and international participants 

to gather and assess data available on Atlantic leatherback turtles. 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 27 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: Priority recovery actions needed for the leatherback sea turtle include 

the following: 

•	 Reduce bycatch in commercial and artisanal fisheries. 

	 Implement regulations in the United States requiring the use of TEDs, or other suitable 

conservation measures, wherever the distribution of sea turtles overlaps with the use of trawl 

gear known to take turtles. 

	 Develop a strategy to document and address the critical problem of entanglement in fixed pot 

gear in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. 

 Continue to promote the use of large circle hooks in global longline fisheries and continue to 

identify other gear modifications and fishing practices to reduce bycatch in longline fisheries. 

•	 Support nations in monitoring and implementing management measures to reduce sea turtle bycatch 

in pelagic and coastal fisheries. 

•	 Continue and improve population assessments on nesting beaches and in foraging habitats. 

•	 Improve understanding of the effects of commercial fishery harvest on key prey species. 

•	 Continue to provide scientific and technical support to programs, help to establish standardized and 

reliable monitoring protocols, and facilitate community incentive programs to promote increased 

hatchling production and to reduce harvest of nests and nesting females. 

•	 Continue to promote and expand outreach and education programs. 

•	 Continue to assess factors impacting hatchling production and implement suitable, science-based and 

culturally appropriate management measures to reduce nest loss through predation, harvest, erosion 

and inundation, elevated sand temperatures, and any other factors impacting nests or hatchling 

production. 

•	 Continue to investigate and identify leatherback foraging habitats and migrations. 

Recovery Priority Number: 1 

The recovery priority number for the leatherback sea turtle is 1. This priority number represents the critical 

status of this globally listed species and is based on a high magnitude of threat, a high recovery potential, and 

the presence of conflict with economic activities. 

28 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Caretta caretta) 

Date Listed: July 28, 1978 (43 FR 32800) 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status:

Pacific: A final recovery plan was approved 

on January 12, 1998. 

Atlantic: A final revised recovery plan was 

approved on December 31, 2008. 

Species Status: In 2009 a biological review 

team (BRT) consisting of federal (NMFS 

and FWS) and state biologists completed a 

global loggerhead turtle status review. This 

review evaluated loggerhead turtles by 

ocean basin: Pacific Ocean, Atlantic Ocean 

(including the Mediterranean Sea), and 

Indian Ocean, and identified nine DPS’ that 

are discrete and significant relative to the taxon. In the Pacific, the BRT identified a North Pacific DPS and a 

South Pacific DPS. In the Atlantic, the BRT identified a Northeast Atlantic DPS, Northwest Atlantic DPS, 

South Atlantic DPS, and Mediterranean Sea DPS. In the Indian Ocean, the BRT identified the Southwest 

Indian Ocean DPS and the Southeast Indo-Pacific DPS. The two populations that occur within U.S. waters 

are the North Pacific and Northwest Atlantic DPS’s. 

Nesting beach monitoring activities in Japan began in the 1950s on some beaches and expanded to all known 

nesting beaches beginning in 1990 by the Sea Turtle Association of Japan (STAJ) and their partners. 

Approximately 40% of all loggerhead nesting in Japan occurs at three primary nesting beaches on Yakushima 

Island (Kamezaki et al. 2003). Current research shows that there is a strong climatic signal in the nesting 

population in both the North Pacific and Northwest Atlantic populations, explaining up to 88% of the annual 

variability in these populations (Van Houtan and Halley 2011). Based on annual nesting data of 2,500 nests 

laid per year between 1998 and 2000, it is estimated that fewer than 1,000 females may have bred annually in 

Japan (Kamezaki et al. 2003). 

Between 2000 and 2007 nesting 

activity has continued to be 

variable (Figure 4) with 11,082 and 

7,495 nests documented, 

respectively, in 2008 and 2009 

(NMFS 2008; Matsuzawa 2010). 

There is no loggerhead nesting in 

the U.S. Pacific. 

In the Northwest Atlantic, the 

majority of loggerhead nesting 

occurs along the coast of the U.S. 

from southern Virginia through 

Alabama, with additional nesting 

occurring along the coast of 

Mexico, Central America, 

Colombia, Venezuela and the 

eastern Caribbean Islands. Total 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 

Photo credit: National Ocean Service 

Figure 4. Nesting activity of North Pacific loggerhead turtles 1990 – 

2007 (figure adapted from Conant et al. 2009). 

29 
 

 

 

 

 

 

estimated nesting in the United States has fluctuated between 47,000 and 90,000 nests per year over the last 

decade. Results from standardized nesting beach surveys in Florida have demonstrated a significant decline 

in nesting over the past two decades (Figure 5). Nesting in Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina has 

also declined, although not as significantly as in Florida. In Mexico, 1,000–2,000 loggerhead nests have been 

documented annually in recent years, and nesting has been declining. 

Figure 5. Number of loggerhead nests documented on Florida core index beaches, 1989–2010. 

Threats and Impacts in the Marine Environment: Threats and impacts found in the marine environment 

affecting loggerhead turtles include the following: 

•	 Bycatch in domestic and international commercial and artisanal fisheries: Fisheries known to interact with 

juvenile and adult loggerheads include trawl, gillnet, longline, hook and line, purse seine, pound net, 

dredge, and pot/trap fisheries. 

•	 Directed take of immature loggerheads outside the United States. 

•	 Marine debris and entanglement: Loggerheads can ingest a wide variety of marine debris, and effects 

include direct effects as well as secondary effects such as interference with digestion, metabolism as 

well as absorption of toxic by-products. Turtles can become entangled in marine debris, such as 

“ghost” fishing gear and discarded shipping and packing materials. 

•	 Vessel strikes: Especially in areas where recreational and/or commercial vessel traffic (small, medium, 

and/or large vessels) is intense, propeller and collision injuries, many resulting in death, are common. 

•	 Power plant entrainment and entrapment, primarily along the U.S. Atlantic coast. 

•	 Habitat loss and alteration from anthropogenic activities in the marine environment. 

•	 Dredging: Dredging can result in marine habitat destruction via both direct and indirect effects, and 

hopper dredges can entrain and kill turtles. 

•	 Oil and gas exploration, development, and transportation: Underwater explosions (e.g., gas and oil structure 

removal and seismic exploration) can kill or injure turtles, and may destroy or damage habitat. Sea 

turtles are also at risk when encountering oil or other petroleum products in the marine environment, 

as respiration, skin, blood chemistry, and salt gland functions may be affected. 

•	 Military activities: Various short-term and longer-term military exercises in the marine environment 

may impact the migratory and foraging behavior of turtles and their habitats. 

•	 Global climate change and sea level rise may result in changes to nesting and foraging habitat (e.g., 

shoreline erosion, beach temperature changes), and hatching success rates. 

30 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

•	 Pollution: Point and non-point source pollution (e.g., pesticides, heavy metals, and PCBs) in the 

marine environment have been detected in turtles and their eggs. 

Conservation Actions: Conservation actions conducted in 2008–2010 for recovery of the loggerhead turtle 

include the following: 

Pacific/Indian Ocean: 

•	 Identified population home ranges and conducted population identification of nesting, bycaught, 

foraging, and stranded loggerheads using DNA analysis. 

•	 Evaluated loggerhead turtle population trends and designed and evaluated conservation strategies via 

stochastic simulation models. 

•	 Completed research to determine satellite transmitter drag for biotelemetry studies on turtles. 

•	 Continued to manage interaction and mortality rates in U.S. Pacific longline fleets by requiring large 

circle hooks combined with non-squid bait; proper handling of hooked and entangled loggerheads; 

requiring the use of disentangling and de-hooking equipment such as dip nets, line cutters, and dehookers; and implementing closures. 

•	 Continued to investigate and publish results of migration routes and preferred oceanic habitats by 

attaching satellite transmitters and tracking loggerheads in the Pacific. 

•	 Supported the development, completion, and dissemination of a Turtle Research Database System in 

collaboration with six international agencies. 

•	 Collaborated with foreign partners to export longline fishery technologies through education and 

outreach, circle hook exchange program, and fishing gear experiments to evaluate options to reduce 

bycatch and mortality. Projects to date have occurred in Ecuador, Mexico, Guatemala, Costa Rica, 

Peru, Brazil, Columbia, Chile, Korea, Thailand, Japan, Philippines, Spain, Vietnam, and Indonesia. 

•	 Convened the fifth International Fishers Forum to review and promote the transfer of commercial 

longline bycatch reduction technology, and discuss coastal and marine spatial planning. 

•	 Continued to conduct skipper workshops to educate commercial fishermen on sea turtle
 

identification and biology, and handling and resuscitation requirements
 

•	 Continued TED outreach and training efforts with various foreign governments. 

•	 Identified a list of commercial fisheries in state and Federal waters that will be required to take 

observers upon NMFS’ request. 

•	 Convened a workshop to develop ecosystem-based stock assessment approaches for sea turtles. 

•	 Archived over 3,200 loggerhead turtle tissue samples in the Southwest Fisheries Science Center 

Molecular Research Sample Collection for use in a variety of population structure, demographic, and 

trophic ecology studies. 

•	 Convened a genetics working group meeting to share information among researchers and identify 

critical data gaps for nesting populations. 

•	 Analyzed genetic samples from nesting and foraging animals with molecular markers to determine 

Pacific wide population stock structure. 

•	 Supported development of quantitative methods for sea turtle management. 

Western and Central Pacific : 

•	 Participated in the Indian Ocean MOU on the Conservation and Management of Marine Turtles of 

the IOSEA, and its associated CMP, to provide a similar comprehensive framework for the 

conservation and protection of sea turtles and their habitats in the Indo-Pacific region. Led the 

development and negotiations to obtain [non-binding] agreement and passage of a resolution 

dedicated to reducing bycatch of sea turtles. 

•	 Continued to educate Hawaii-based longline fishery participants about sea turtle mitigation 

requirements including safe handling, gear removal, resuscitation, and release of turtles caught 

incidental to the fishery. 

•	 Continued to assist national observer programs and supported capacity building through in-country 

fishery observer training to improve sea turtle species identification, reporting, handling, and 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 31 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

education regarding fishery mitigation techniques. Projects to date have occurred in Palau, Indonesia, 

Vietnam, PNG, Solomon Islands, Marshal Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Cook 

Islands, and New Caledonia. 

•	 Continued to support monitoring and beach management measures (to relocate doomed nests due to 

beach erosion and wave inundation) at loggerhead nesting beaches in Japan in collaboration with the 

Sea Turtle Association of Japan. 

•	 Continued to support an education and outreach coordinator to promote loggerhead sea turtle
 

conservation and management concerns in New Caledonia in coordination with studies to 

understand South Pacific pelagic habitat use and migratory movements via satellite tracking.
 

•	 Supported efforts to develop and test mitigation measures (such as escape mechanism) to reduce sea 

turtle bycatch in pound net fisheries in Japan. 

•	 Continued to work within the context of the WCPFC to modify and improve international bycatch 

mitigation requirements. 

East Pacific : 

•	 Continued to support efforts to quantify fishery mortality (strandings) in Baja California, Mexico and 

implement public and fisherman education and outreach initiatives to raise capacity to mitigate and 

reduce artisanal fishery bycatch. 

•	 Supported education and community outreach efforts to reduce illegal harvest, fisheries bycatch, and 

mortality of sea turtles along the Baja California peninsula of Mexico. 

•	 Supported research into methods to reduce sea turtle bycatch in the Mexican halibut gillnet fishery in 

Baja California, including a series of tests with illuminated fishing gear. 

•	 Supported efforts to deploy animal-borne video technology to better understand the diving and
 

foraging behavior of loggerhead sea turtles, as well as help assess the sight ability of these turtles
 

during aerial surveys in order to calibrate relative abundance estimates off the Pacific coast of Baja
 

California.
 

•	 Supported an observer program in the Chilean swordfish-directed longline fishery and provided
 

circle hooks and technical support for experiments testing modified gear.
 

•	 Conducted capacity training exercises for fishers and boat captains from Peruvian artisanal fleets to 

educate them on safe handling and resuscitation techniques for comatose turtles incidentally captured 

in gillnet and longline gear. 

•	 Supported an observer program to collect sea turtle-fisheries information and sea turtle tissue
 

samples from coastal artisanal driftnet fisheries and commercial longline fisheries interactions in
 

Chile.
 

Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico: 

•	 Continued gear research to develop TEDs suitable for use in non-shrimp trawl fisheries such as the 

flynet, whelk, summer flounder, scallop, and sciaenid bottom trawl fisheries, as well as testing 

modifications for shrimp trawl TEDs 

•	 Continued TED outreach and training efforts with various foreign governments. 

•	 Convened a workshop to review progress on TED gear research and discuss directions for future
 

research in mid-Atlantic trawl fisheries.
 

•	 Conducted an inspection program for modified pound net leaders in the Chesapeake Bay to ensure 

gear is consistent with sea turtle requirements. Coordinated with the Commonwealth of Virginia and 

Bottlenose Dolphin Take Reduction Team to expand modified pound net leader regulations. 

•	 Convened a workshop to discuss sea turtle injuries in northeast fisheries and develop guidance to 

evaluate post-release mortality from such injuries.
 

•	 Identified a list of commercial fisheries in state and Federal waters that will be required to take
 

observers upon NMFS’ request.
 

•	 Continued fishery observer programs to monitor, report, and estimate loggerhead bycatch. 

•	 Developed average annual bycatch estimate of loggerheads in mid-Atlantic gillnet gear from 1995–­

2006. 

32 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

•	 Developed estimate of observable turtle interactions in scallop dredge gear from 2001–2008. 

•	 Continued coordination and support of the STSSN in the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico. 

•	 Convened workshop to discuss watercraft related injuries in sea turtles, including standardizations of 

data collection and identification of priorities and management needs. 

•	 Supported in-water population studies in North Carolina and Florida. 

•	 Identified population home ranges and conducted population identification of nesting, foraging, 

stranded, and bycaught loggerheads using DNA analysis, flipper tagging, and satellite telemetry. 

•	 Evaluate the impact of fisheries on sea turtle populations in Morocco and Oman. 

•	 Conduct observer training workshops in West Africa to determine sea turtle bycatch in local
 

fisheries.
 

•	 Provide scientific and technical advice on sea turtle nesting beach and bycatch projects in West 

Africa. 

•	 Develop a sea turtle research and conservation strategy for the South Atlantic. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: Priority recovery actions needed for the loggerhead sea turtle include 

the following: 

•	 Reduce incidental capture of loggerheads in domestic and international commercial and artisanal 

fisheries. 

•	 Continue to promote the use of large circle hooks in global longline fisheries and continue to identify 

other gear modifications and fishing practices to reduce bycatch in longline fisheries. 

•	 Investigate the effects of commercial fishing on loggerhead prey distribution and abundance. 

•	 Continue and improve population assessments on nesting beaches and in foraging habitats. 

•	 Implement regulations in the United States requiring the use of TEDs, or other suitable conservation 

measures, wherever the distribution of loggerhead sea turtles overlaps with the use of trawling gear 

known to take turtles. 

•	 Continue to build international capacity for the conservation and management of the North Pacific 

DPS among the United States, Japan, and Mexico. 

•	 Continue to assess the impact of coastal fisheries and develop measures to mitigate and reduce 

bycatch in coastal commercial and artisanal fisheries. 

Recovery Priority Number: 5 

The recovery priority number for the loggerhead sea turtle is 5. This represents a moderate magnitude of 

threat, a high recovery potential, and the presence of conflict with economic activities. 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 33 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Olive Ridley Sea Turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea) 

Date Listed: July 28, 1978 (43 FR 32800) 

Legal Status: 

Endangered (breeding colony populations of Pacific coast of Mexico) 

Threatened (rangewide except where listed as endangered) 

Recovery Plan Status: A recovery plan for the U.S. Pacific populations of the olive ridley sea turtle was 

approved on January 12, 1998. 

Species Status: The olive ridley is the most abundant sea turtle in the world and population trends vary 

among geographic regions as well as within regions. The behavior of olive ridleys, primarily nesting as an 

arribada (a mass arrival of turtles to the nesting beach), makes it difficult to precisely measure annual nesting. 

The status of the primary nesting populations of the olive ridley in the Pacific varies from declining to 

increasing (Table 2). In the Pacific, there is an Eastern Pacific population occurring primarily in Mexico and 

Costa Rica with tens of thousands to over a million nests laid annually, and a Western Pacific population with 

the largest nesting population occurring in India. In the western Atlantic, olive ridleys nest in Suriname, 

French Guiana, and Brazil. Survey effort has fluctuated over the years at these sites and it is difficult to assess 

nesting trends because of incomplete surveys during many years. In recent years, no more than 5,000–6,000 

olive ridley nests are documented annually in the western Atlantic. In the eastern Atlantic, there is 

widespread, low density olive ridley nesting along many West African beaches, but trends are unknown. 

Table 2. Status and trends of Pacific olive ridley nesting populations. 

Subpopulation No. of Females Nesting Annually Trend 

Mexico – Playa Escobilla ~1 million (nests) Increasing 

Costa Rica – Playa Ostional 450,000 - 600,000 Unknown2 

Costa Rica – Playa Nancite 25,000 – 50,000 Unknown 

Guatemala 4,300,000 (eggs) Declining 

Nicaragua Unknown Unknown 

India (Gahirmatha) 150,000 – 200,000 Mixed3 

Indonesia Scattered Unknown 

Malaysia Scattered Declining 

Threats and Impacts: Threats and impacts found in the marine environment affecting olive ridley turtles 

include the following: 

•	 Direct harvest. 

•	 Incidental capture in commercial and artisanal fisheries: Fisheries known to interact with olive ridleys include 

gillnets, longline fisheries, purse seine fisheries, trawl fisheries, gillnets, and hook and line. 

•	 Vessel strikes: Especially in areas where recreational and/or commercial vessel traffic (small, medium, 

and/or large vessels) is intense, propeller and collision injuries are not uncommon. 

•	 Global climate change and sea level rise may result in changes to nesting and foraging habitat (e.g., 

shoreline erosion, beach temperature changes), and hatching success rates. 

•	 Habitat loss and alteration from anthropogenic activities in the marine environment. 

2 Although the data are too limited for a statistically valid determination of a trend, there does appear to be a 6-year decrease in the number of
 

nesting females.

3 Although there has been no drastic decline in the nesting population in the past 25 years, there are differences in trends between decades. Data
 

from the 1990s show the population is declining or on the verge of a decline, and no arribadas have been documented in recent years.
 

34 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Conservation Actions: Conservation actions conducted in 2004–2006 for recovery of the olive ridley turtle 

include the following: 

Pacific/Indian Ocean: 

•	 Continued to educate Hawaii- and U.S. west coast-based longline, ETP purse seine, and California 

drift gillnet fishery participants about sea turtle mitigation requirements including safe handling, 

resuscitation, gear removal, and release of turtles caught incidental to the fishery. 

•	 Supported the development, completion and dissemination of a Turtle Research Database System in 

collaboration with six international agencies. 

•	 Continued to identify stock home ranges and conducted population identification of nesting, 

foraging, stranded, and olive ridleys caught as bycatch using DNA analysis. 

•	 Continued population assessment work under the STSSN, including genetic sampling and analysis of 

age classes. 

•	 Completed research to determine satellite transmitter drag for biotelemetry studies on turtles. 

•	 Continued TED outreach and training efforts with various foreign governments. 

•	 Continued to collaborate with foreign partners to export longline fishery technologies through 

education and outreach, circle hook exchange program, and fishing gear experiments. Projects to 

date have occurred in: Ecuador, Mexico, Guatemala, Costa Rica, Peru, Brazil, Columbia, Chile, 

Korea, Thailand, Japan, Philippines, Spain, Vietnam, and Indonesia. 

•	 Identified a list of commercial fisheries in state and Federal waters that will be required to take 

observers upon NMFS’ request. 

•	 Convened the fifth International Fishers Forum to review and promote the transfer of commercial 

longline bycatch reduction technology and discuss coastal and marine spatial planning. 

•	 Convened a workshop to develop ecosystem-based stock assessment approaches for sea turtles. 

•	 Archived over 75 olive ridley turtle tissue samples in the Southwest Fisheries Science Center 

Molecular Research Sample Collection for use in a variety of population structure, demographic, and 

trophic ecology studies. 

•	 Analyzed genetic samples from nesting, foraging, and fisheries bycatch animals with molecular 

markers to determine Pacific wide population stock structure. 

•	 Supported development of quantitative methods for sea turtle management. 

Western and Central Pacific : 

•	 Participated in the Indian Ocean MOU on the Conservation and Management of Marine Turtles of 

the IOSEA, and its associated CMP, to provide a similar comprehensive framework for the 

conservation and protection of sea turtles and their habitats in the Indo-Pacific region. Led the 

development and negotiations to obtain [non-binding] agreement and passage of a resolution 

dedicated to reducing bycatch of sea turtles. 

•	 Continued to manage the interaction and mortality rates in U.S. Pacific longline fleets (currently 

Hawaii-based only) by requiring large circle hooks combined with non-squid bait; requiring proper 

handling of hooked and entangled turtles; and requiring use of disentangling and de-hooking 

equipment such as dip nets, line cutters, and de-hookers. 

•	 Continued to educate Hawaii- and U.S. west coast-based longline, Eastern Tropical Pacific purse 

seine, and California drift gillnet fishery participants about sea turtle mitigation requirements 

including safe handling, gear removal, resuscitation, and release of turtles caught incidental to the 

fisheries. 

•	 Continued to assist national observer programs and supported capacity building through in-country 

fishery observer training to improve sea turtle species identification, reporting, handling, and 

education regarding fishery mitigation techniques. Projects to date have occurred in Palau, Indonesia, 

Vietnam, PNG, Solomon Islands, Marshal Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Cook 

Islands, and New Caledonia. 

•	 Supported surveying of trawl and longline fishing crews at Indonesian ports to estimate capture rates 

of sea turtles and supported a trial observer program in Indonesian longline and trawl fisheries. 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 35 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

•	 Supported a project in Papua New Guinea to mitigate tuna and prawn fisheries interactions with sea 

turtles and to build the capacity of the National Fisheries Authority. 

•	 Continued to work within the context of the WCPFC to modify and improve international bycatch 

mitigation requirements. 

Eastern Pacific : 

•	 Supported an observer program in the Chilean swordfish-directed longline fishery and provided 

circle hooks and technical support for experiments testing modified gear. 

•	 Conducted capacity training exercises for fishers and boat captains from Peruvian artisanal fleets to 

educate them on safe handling and resuscitation techniques for comatose turtles incidentally captured 

in gillnet and longline gear. 

Atlantic : 

•	 Continued gear research to develop TEDs suitable for use in non-shrimp trawl fisheries such as the 

flynet, whelk, summer flounder, scallop, and sciaenid bottom trawl fisheries, as well as testing 

modifications for shrimp trawl TEDs. 

•	 Continued TED outreach and training efforts with various foreign governments. 

•	 Convened a workshop to review progress on TED gear research and discuss directions for future 

research in mid-Atlantic trawl fisheries. 

•	 Identified a list of commercial fisheries in state and Federal waters that will be required to take 

observers upon NMFS’ request. 

•	 Continued coordination and support of the STSSN in the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico. 

•	 Conducted observer training workshops in West Africa to determine sea turtle bycatch in local 

fisheries. 

•	 Provided scientific and technical advice on sea turtle nesting beach and bycatch projects in West 

Africa. 

•	 Developed a sea turtle research and conservation strategy for the South Atlantic. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: Priority recovery actions needed for the olive ridley sea turtle include 

the following: 

•	 Support the use of large circle hooks in global longline fisheries and continue to identify other gear 

modifications and fishing practices to reduce bycatch in longline fisheries. 

•	 Build capacity of foreign nations to monitor and reduce bycatch in pelagic and coastal fisheries. 

•	 Improve understanding of the effects of commercial fishery harvest on key prey species. 

Recovery Priority Number: 5 (Breeding colony populations of Pacific coast of Mexico); 5
 

(Rangewide)
 

The recovery priority number for the olive ridley sea turtle is 5. This represents a moderate magnitude of
 

threat, a high recovery potential, and the presence of conflict with economic activities.
 

36 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

PACIFIC SALMON RECOVERY 

Overview for 2008–2010 

Salmon and Steelhead Listed Under the Endangered Species Act 

NMFS has identified 52 “species”—distinct population segments (DPS) or evolutionarily significant units 

(ESU)4—of Pacific salmon and steelhead on the West Coast of the United States. Of these 52 species, 28 are 

currently protected under the ESA (see “Listing Actions” below)—five are listed as endangered and 23 as 

threatened. Eighteen occur solely in the NMFS Northwest Region, nine occur solely in the NMFS Southwest 

Region, and the range of one ESU—the Southern Oregon/Northern California coast coho salmon—overlaps 

both Regions (Table 3). These species migrate along the West Coast as they grow to adults, before returning 

to the freshwater rivers where the adults spawn and their progeny are reared. Figure 6 shows the distribution 

of all ESA-listed Pacific salmon ESUs and steelhead DPSs by recovery domain. 

Table 3. ESA Listing Status of Pacific Salmon and Steelhead. 

Recovery Planning Domain ESU/DPS Current ESA Listing Status 

Puget Sound 

Puget Sound Chinook Threatened 

Hood Canal Summer chum Threatened 

Ozette Lake sockeye Threatened 

Puget Sound steelhead Threatened 

Willamette/Lower Columbia 

Upper Willamette River Chinook Threatened 

Lower Columbia River Chinook Threatened 

Lower Columbia River steelhead Threatened 

Lower Columbia River coho Threatened 

Columbia River chum Threatened 

Upper Willamette River steelhead Threatened 

Interior Columbia 

Upper Columbia River spring Chinook Endangered 

Snake River spring/summer Chinook Threatened 

Snake River fall Chinook Threatened 

Upper Columbia River steelhead Threatened 

Middle Columbia River steelhead Threatened 

Snake River Basin steelhead Threatened 

Snake River sockeye Endangered 

Oregon/N. California Coasts Oregon Coast coho Threatened 

Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast coho Threatened 

North-central California Coast 

Central California coast coho Endangered 

Northern California steelhead Threatened 

California coastal Chinook Threatened 

Central California coast steelhead Threatened 

South-central/Southern California Coast 

South-central California coast steelhead Threatened 

Southern California steelhead Endangered 

California Central Valley 

Sacramento River winter-run Chinook Endangered 

Central Valley spring-run Chinook Threatened 

Central Valley steelhead Threatened 

4 The ESA defines species as “... 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 US.C. 1531-1544). NMFS refers to a distinct 

population segment of Pacific salmon as an “evolutionarily significant unit” under the ESA (56 FR 58612; November 20, 1991). 

The ocean-going (anadromous) steelhead has a related stream-dwelling (resident) life form that is under the jurisdiction of the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The two forms delineate separate DPSs, and NMFS has listed the anadromous DPSs specified 

above as endangered or threatened pursuant to the ESA. 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 37 
 

Puget Sound • 

l--<l1!!1:1! Lab SodrsyII fliJ (I} 

2--fux1c.B Swnmer-MlOun ESlJ (I} 

:H"ug!It SOInI SIIIeIB DPS (l) 

oH'ugBt Scu1d DinID<. ESlJ (I} 

WllamettalLcJwer Coknlbia • 

s--<:dImiI.lM! CIun mJ (I} 

Hower CoUrbiIIMf Oinodl EStJ (l) 

7--tp" 'I¥IInIIIIII RMr DinID<. ESlJ (I} 

IH.lMoer CoUrbiIIM' SlNhIiIIIJIS (I} 

~ CoUrDIIIM' Qlho EstJ flJ 

1~~ RMIr Sl!JIIB DPS{l) 

Oregon Coast • 

11--<ln9Jn Coat CDbD ESlJ (I} 

nterior Columbia .... 

12--&i1b RMIr So;byI ESlJ JJ 

1~ CdInDa 1M! Spmu-IWI Oinodl ESlJ (ij 

14--&Ji1b 1M' IWHun !lime*. ESlJ {l} 

15--&iN1M'~-MlDinlD<.ESlJ(T) 

1~ CdInDa IMr SlNIIal [lIS {l} 

17~ CdIIrtiaIM! SlaIhad IJIS {l} 

18--&Ji1b 1M' 111*1 sw-t DPS {l) 

Southern OregoniNorthern California Coast 

1 Q-S. 0reg00IN. Cimlmia CoiI!I Coho ESU [T} 

Central Valley 

2O--SIUamenkllWef WWlIef-rm Olioook ESU (E) 

21--ca1fomia Central V*'I SprirQ-rm <:tUx* ESU {T) 

""'" 22--Calfomia Central V*'I StrehelIl Ol'S {l) 

North-Central California Coast 

23-Ca1fomia Coas1llI Chilook ESU [T} 

24--tlorthem Cailmia S1eeteiKI Ol'S [T} 

25-Central ClIiIom~ Coast Coho ESlJ (EI 

26-Central ClIiIom~ Coast ~ OPS {l) 

South-CentrailSouthern California Coast 

27-5. Cenlral Ca~ia Coast ~ OPS [T} 

2S--SaJ1hem CaW"omia 5eeheill OPS (E) 

Figure 6. Distribution of ESA-Listed Pacific Salmon and Steelhead by Recovery Domain. 

38 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

Recovery Planning Efforts for Pacific Salmon and Steelhead 

Recovery planning is active for every listed species of Pacific salmon. Table 4 summarizes the status of ESA 

recovery plans for Pacific salmon and steelhead. NMFS believes it is critically important for the Pacific 

salmon recovery planning process to partner with the numerous federal, state, regional, tribal, local, and 

private conservation efforts already underway. Building on this collaborative effort, the agency has established 

a recovery planning process to include its partners and, to the extent practicable, capitalize on these ongoing 

efforts.5 Through these local initiatives, salmon recovery plans bring people, processes, and resources 

together to guide investments toward a common goal of self-sustaining viable species of salmon and 

steelhead. 

Table 4. Status of ESA Recovery Plan Development for Pacific Salmon and Steelhead. 

Recovery Planning Domain 

Puget Sound 

Willamette/Lower Columbia 

Interior Columbia 

Oregon/N. California Coasts 

North-central California Coast 

South-central/Southern 

California Coast 

California Central Valley 

ESU/DPS 

Puget Sound Chinook 

Hood Canal Summer chum 

Ozette Lake sockeye 

Puget Sound steelhead 

Upper Willamette River Chinook 

Lower Columbia River Chinook 

Lower Columbia River steelhead 

Lower Columbia River coho 

Columbia River chum 

Upper Willamette River steelhead 

Upper Columbia River spring Chinook 

Snake River spring/summer Chinook 

Snake River fall Chinook 

Upper Columbia River steelhead 

Middle Columbia River steelhead 

Snake River Basin steelhead 

Snake River sockeye 

Oregon Coast coho 

Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast 

coho 

Central California coast coho 

Northern California steelhead 

California coastal Chinook 

Central California coast steelhead 

South-central California coast steelhead 

Southern California steelhead 

Sacramento River winter-run Chinook 

Central Valley spring-run Chinook 

Central Valley steelhead 

Recovery 

Plan 

underway 

Co-manager 

& peer 

review 

completed 

6 Recovery 

Plan 

Proposed in 

Federal 

Register 

Interim 

Regional 

Recovery 

Plan 

Final ESA 

Recovery 

Plan 

Complete 

























































5 For more information on recovery activities, visit NMFS salmon recovery websites at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-RecoveryPlanning/index.cfm and http://swr.nmfs.noaa.gov/salmon.htm.
 6 An Interim Regional Recovery Plan addresses portions of ESUs and DPSs and meets the requirements of the ESA for those areas.
 

It has been announced in the Federal Register. It is interim until a final plan can be developed that addresses the entire ESU and DPS. It
 

includes a locally developed plan with stakeholder buy-in and a NMFS supplement that clarifies and expands on ESA recovery 

requirements.
 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 39 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

NMFS organized the 28 listed species into eight recovery areas or “domains.” Recovery domains in the 

Northwest Region are Puget Sound, Willamette/Lower Columbia, Interior Columbia, and Southern 

Oregon/Northern California Coast. Domains in the Southwest Region are the Southern Oregon/Northern 

California Coast (SONCC), North-Central California Coast, California Central Valley, and South-Central/ 

Southern California Coast (Figure 6). Recovery planning for the SONCC domain is managed jointly by 

NMFS’ Northwest and Southwest Regions. 

For each domain, NMFS convened technical recovery teams (TRTs), composed of regional technical experts 

and NMFS scientists. NMFS’ intent in establishing TRTs was to seek unique geographic and species expertise 

and to develop a solid scientific foundation for the recovery plans. NMFS asked the TRTs to develop 

recommendations on biological viability criteria for each ESU/DPS and its component populations; evaluate 

the status of each ESU/DPS relative to viability criteria; provide scientific support to local and regional 

recovery planning efforts; and provide scientific evaluations and peer review of recovery plans. In the 

Northwest and Southwest Regions, the TRTs have developed either draft or final viability criteria for all listed 

species except Puget Sound steelhead, which was listed in May 2007. 

In all of the Northwest Region’s recovery domains except Idaho, local stakeholder groups made up of local 

governments, tribes, and other public and private stakeholders have taken the lead for developing recovery 

plans. In Idaho, NMFS is working with the state to prepare a recovery plan that is endorsed by the state, 

tribes, and multiple stakeholders. In the Southwest Region, NMFS staff are preparing recovery plans with the 

active engagement and support of the State of California, other federal agencies, and numerous tribes and 

stakeholders. In all cases, the TRT products are being used to develop recovery goals and criteria for delisting, 

assess limiting factors, and prioritize and sequence actions to address the limiting factors. 

Listing Actions 

On August 24, 2009, NMFS announced a change in status for the Upper Columbia River steelhead (74 

FR42605). In January 2006, we reclassified the Upper Columbia River steelhead from endangered to 

threatened based on an updated review that noted increasing steelhead abundance, more widespread 

spawning, and artificial propagation programs aimed at improving local adaptation and diversity within the 

range of this DPS (71 FR 834; January 5, 2006 ). In April 2006, our decision to downlist this from endangered 

to threatened was challenged in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. On June 13, 

2007, the district court ruled that we had erred in downlisting Upper Columbia River steelhead, concluding 

that we had not given appropriate consideration to self-sustaining natural populations (Trout Unlimited v. Lohn, 

C06-0483-JCC, 2007). The result of this ruling was to return Upper Columbia River steelhead to endangered 

status. We appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and, on March 16, 2009, 

that court ruled that our downlisting did not violate the ESA. Accordingly, on June 18, 2009, the district court 

revised its ruling, effectively re-instating Upper Columbia River steelhead to threatened status under the ESA. 

On April 29, 2010, we announced that we conducted a new status and listing determination for the Oregon 

Coast coho salmon ESU (74 FR 19528). We first proposed to list the Oregon Coast coho salmon ESU as 

threatened under the ESA in 1995 (60 FR 38011; July 25, 1995). Since then, we have completed several status 

reviews for this ESU, and its listing classification has changed between threatened and not warranted for 

listing a number of times. As part of a litigation settlement, we agreed to conduct a new status review for this 

ESU. On May 26, 2010, we announced the result of the status review and proposed to retain the threatened 

listing for this ESU (75 FR 29489). We plan to issue a final rule for this listing determination in 2011. 

Critical Habitat 

Critical habitat is presently designated for all ESA-listed salmon ESUs and steelhead DPSs except Puget 

Sound steelhead and Lower Columbia River coho. We are currently developing a proposal to designate 

critical habitat for these two ESUs. 

40 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The specific areas designated as critical habitat in the Northwest Region include approximately 30,085 miles 

(48,417 km) of lake, riverine, and estuarine habitat in the three northwestern states, as well as approximately 

2,312 miles (3,721 km) of marine nearshore habitat in Puget Sound, Washington. The specific areas 

designated as critical habitat in the Southwest Region include approximately 10,052 miles (16,177 km) of 

riverine habitat and 470 square miles (1,212 sq km) of estuarine habitat within the geographic areas occupied 

by the listed species. In February 2008, NMFS designated critical habitat for the Oregon Coast coho ESU (73 

FR 7816, NMFS 2008a), including 6,568 miles (10,570 km) of riverine habitat, and 15 square miles (38.8 sq 

km) of lake habitat. 

Five-Year Reviews 

NMFS completed its most recent listing determinations for Pacific salmon and steelhead in 2005. The ESA 

requires that, at least every 5 years, NMFS shall conduct a review of all ESA-listed species and determine 

whether any species should: (1) be removed from such list, (2) be changed in status from an endangered 

species to a threatened species, or (3) be changed in status from a threatened species to an endangered 

species. On March 18, 2010, NMFS announced the initiation of 5-year reviews for 16 ESUs of Pacific salmon 

and 11 DPSs of steelhead (75 FR 13082). The 5-year reviews will consider the best scientific and commercial 

data available and new information that has become available since the last listing determinations. The 

Northwest and Southwest Fisheries Science Centers will assist the Northwest and Southwest Regions in 

gathering and analyzing this information. NMFS plans to announce the results of our 5-year review process in 

2011. 

This biennial report includes much of the preliminary scientific information we will use to reach conclusions 

during the 5-year reviews. We will present much of the new information on salmon and steelhead abundance, 

productivity, spatial structure, and diversity. 

Limiting Factors and Threats 

Population declines and extirpations of Pacific salmon and steelhead are the result of numerous factors 

affecting habitat (such as hydropower development, land development, resource extraction, timber harvest 

practices, and other land uses), as well as effects from harvest, hatchery practices,7 natural variation in oceanclimate conditions, and other factors such as predation and the introduction of non-native species. These 

threats and limiting factors affect each listed species differently, and no single factor is solely responsible for 

declines. Furthermore, it is difficult to quantify precisely the relative contribution of any one threat or factor 

to the decline of a given listed species. Each recovery plan evaluates the role of limiting factors and threats 

specific to the ESU/DPS and its component populations and identifies site-specific actions to address those 

factors. 

Human Population Growth 

Regional population growth is projected to continue and poses a potential threat to listed salmon and 

steelhead in both the Northwest and Southwest Regions. According to the U.S Census Bureau, California’s 

population alone is expected to increase from 34 million people in 2000 to more than 48 million people by 

2030. Over the same time frame, the combined human populations of Oregon and Washington are expected 

to increase from 9 million to over 13 million people. The implications of this growth include increased 

demand for land, water, and hydroelectricity, all of which have the potential to exacerbate factors that limit 

species’ viability. 

7 Potential negative aspects of hatchery-bred fish include competition for food, altered genetic diversity of natural populations and changes in fitness 

and productivity, domestication, outbreeding depression, homogenization, and reduction in effective population size (Berejikian et al. 2008). Hatchery 

fish can also benefit recovery by reducing extinction risk and/or by promoting conservation when combined with actions that reduce limiting factors. 

Hatchery fish can augment individuals from native populations to support harvest and meet tribal treaty fishing rights. 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 41 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Climate Change 

Climate change represents a potentially significant threat to the recovery of listed species. Changes in climate 

may adversely affect habitat quality and quantity, water quantity (lower summer streamflows), and water 

quality (higher summer water temperatures). Warmer temperatures could result in more precipitation falling 

as rain rather than snow. In addition, snow pack may diminish and the timing of stream flow could be altered. 

Changes in environmental conditions could affect salmon and steelhead health and survival in the ocean 

through a variety of mechanisms, including increased ocean temperatures, increased stratification of some 

waters, changes in the ocean upwelling, shifts in the distribution of salmon and steelhead, greater prevalence 

of disease, and increased acidity, among others (ISAB 2007). 

ESA Activities Contributing to Recovery 

Many federal and non-federal actions are regulated by the ESA in order to help alleviate the many threats to 

listed species. The contributions of the ESA’s statutory and regulatory tools are summarized below. 

4(d) Rule Activities 

ESA section 9(a)(1) prohibits “take” and import/export of, and commercial transactions involving, all 

species listed as endangered. Take is defined under the ESA as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, 

kill, trap, capture or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct” (Section 3(19)). In the case of 

threatened species, section 4(d) of the ESA directs the Secretary of Commerce to issue regulations he or she 

deems necessary and advisable for the conservation of the species. The 4(d) protective regulations may 

prohibit, with respect to threatened species, some or all of the acts that section 9(a)(1) of the ESA prohibits 

with respect to endangered species. These 9(a)(1) prohibitions and 4(d) regulations apply to all individuals, 

organizations, and agencies subject to U.S. jurisdiction. Under section 4(d), NMFS has tailored specific 

“limits” or exemptions from the take prohibitions applicable to threatened Pacific salmonids to authorize 

certain activities, provided they are consistent with conservation and recovery needs. The Northwest and 

Southwest Regions have approved hundreds of programs and activities under the 4(d) protective regulations, 

ensuring that hatchery and harvest management plans, habitat restoration projects in Washington State, 

resource management plans, road maintenance activities, and tribal resource management plans benefit 

threatened West Coast salmonids. 

Section 7 Activities 

Under section 7 of the ESA, NMFS conducts hundreds of informal and formal consultations every year with 

federal agencies that authorize, fund, or carry out actions that may affect Pacific salmon. In FY 2008 to 2010, 

the Northwest Region conducted 1,324 section 7 consultations, and the Southwest Region conducted 589. 

These consultations ensure federal actions are conducted in ways that are not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of listed species or to adversely modify or destroy critical habitat. The scope of section 7 

consultations includes actions related to land and water management, transportation, restoration, fill and 

removal of materials in stream channels, hydropower operations, hatchery operations, and fishery 

management. 

Section 10 Activities 

Section 10 of the ESA provides authorization for 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. Such 

authorization allows those conducting such activities to proceed with the certainty of ESA compliance and 

ensures that any adverse impacts caused to listed species are being avoided, minimized, mitigated, and 

monitored. 

Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund 

The Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund (PCSRF) was established by Congress in FY 2000 to assist state, 

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

conservation and restoration of healthy and sustainable Pacific salmon runs and the habitats on which they 

42 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

depend. The PCSRF has funded many successful projects that are beginning to show direct benefits, such as 

salmon using newly accessible or improved habitat. A majority of the PCSRF funds have been spent on 

habitat restoration activities, as this is a significant need for salmon recovery. The PCSRF program has also 

filled a vital need by supporting regional and locally based recovery planning and building organizational 

infrastructure, so the long-term goal of salmon recovery can be achieved. Since the program’s inception in FY 

2000, Congress has appropriated a total of $804.9 million for restoration projects in Alaska, Washington, 

Oregon, California, Idaho, and Nevada. The states have provided over 33 percent matching funds to these 

federal funds. Since FY 2000, over 8,000 projects have been funded for habitat protection and restoration; 

watershed and sub-basin planning and assessment; research, monitoring, and evaluation; and public outreach 

and education. Over 6,600 instream and riparian stream miles have been treated, over 1,900 barriers to fish 

passage have been removed opening over 4,400 miles of habitat, and over 695,000 acres of habitat have been 

created, treated or protected. The 2010 PCSRF report is currently available at 

http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery-Planning/PCSRF/upload/PCSRF-Rpt-2010.pdf 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 43 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Salmon Recovery in the Northwest 

Puget Sound Chinook ESU (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) 

Date Listed: March 24, 1999; reaffirmed June 28, 2005 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: The Shared Strategy for Puget Sound—a coalition of tribes, governments, and 

stakeholders—provided a locally developed recovery plan for Puget Sound salmon to NMFS in June 2005. 

NMFS published a Federal Register Notice of Availability for a proposed recovery plan for the Puget Sound 

Chinook ESU in December 2005 (70 FR 76445, NMFS 2005). The final recovery plan for this ESU, including 

the NMFS Final Supplement, was published in January 2007. 

Technical Recovery Team Products: The Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team (TRT) produced an 

independent-population identification report, draft ESU and population viability recommendations, review 

notes for watershed recovery plan reviews, and technical guidance for local recovery planners. 

Species Status: All Puget Sound Chinook populations are well below the Puget Sound TRT planning range 

for recovery escapement levels. Most populations are also consistently below the spawner recruit levels 

identified by the TRT as consistent with recovery. Across the ESU, most populations have declined in 

abundance somewhat since the last status review in 2005, and trends since 1995 are mostly flat. Several of the 

risk factors identified by Good et al. (2005) are also still present, including high fractions of hatchery fish in 

many populations and widespread loss and degradation of habitat. Many of the habitat and hatchery actions 

identified in the Puget Sound Chinook salmon recovery plan are expected to take years or decades to be 

implemented and to produce significant improvements in natural population attributes, and these trends are 

consistent with these expectations. 

Limiting Factors and Threats: Limiting factors and threats to the Puget Sound Chinook salmon ESU 

include the following: 

•	 Degraded nearshore and estuarine habitat: Nearshore and estuarine habitat throughout the ESU has been 

altered and lost as a result of human activities. Residential and commercial development has reduced 

the amount of functioning habitat available for salmon rearing and migration. The loss of mudflats, 

eelgrass meadows, and macroalgae further limits salmon foraging and rearing opportunities in 

nearshore and estuarine areas. 

•	 Degraded freshwater habitat: Floodplain connectivity and function, channel structure and complexity, 

riparian areas and large wood supply, stream substrate, and water quality have been degraded as a 

result of cumulative impacts of agriculture, forestry, and development. 

•	 Anadromous salmonid hatchery programs: Salmon and steelhead released from Puget Sound hatcheries 

operated for harvest augmentation purposes pose ecological, genetic, and demographic risks to 

natural-origin Chinook salmon populations. 

•	 Salmon harvest management: Total fishery exploitation rates have decreased 14 to 63 percent from rates 

in the 1980s, but weak natural-origin Chinook salmon populations in Puget Sound still require 

enhanced protective measures to reduce the risk of overharvest in Chinook salmon–directed 

fisheries. 

Conservation Actions: Major accomplishments from 2008 to 2010 for this ESU include the following: 

•	 Improved forest management practices on non-federal lands: The Northwest Forest Plan Aquatic Conservation 

Strategy is designed to conserve and restore salmon and steelhead habitat, and provides an anchor 

for federal lands’ contribution to salmon recovery. In addition, implementation of the Forest 

Practices Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), which covers 9.3 million acres of private timber land in 

44 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Washington and which NMFS approved in 2005, is well underway. The plan ensures functional 

watershed conditions and riparian habitats as state forest practice rules are implemented for the 

recovery of listed salmonids. In addition, a separate HCP for Washington State Forest Trust Lands 

provides assurances for a high level of ecological function on those state forest lands. 

•	 Approved 4(d) limit for the Washington State Department of Transportation Routine Road Maintenance activities: 

The limit is implemented by local governments. 

•	 Instream flows on two rivers are assured by separate HCPs being implemented by the cities of Seattle 

and Tacoma. 

•	 Planned dam removal: Completed ESA section 7 consultation with the Olympic National Park on the 

removal of two dams on the Elwha River that have blocked salmon access to 70 miles of habitat 

since the early 1900s. The removal of these two dams beginning in 2012 will greatly aid salmon 

recovery in this system. The project will restore freshwater habitat access, improve habitat conditions 

within the watershed, and improve estuary habitat at the mouth of the Elwha River. 

•	 Improved harvest and hatchery management: The Puget Sound Harvest Plan includes harvest objectives 

consistent with optimizing habitat potential and integrating hatchery objectives. Harvest objectives 

were revised to be consistent with what is known of the productivity in the various watersheds and 

the contribution of hatchery spawners. The harvest plan also includes implementation, monitoring, 

and evaluation procedures designed to ensure fisheries are consistent with fishery objectives for 

conservation and resource use. Co-managers have also implemented time, area, and gear restrictions 

to maximize harvest opportunity on hatchery and healthy listed Chinook populations and to 

minimize impacts on weaker populations. These actions include complete closure of some terminal 

fisheries, non-retention of Chinook, and selective fishing techniques. Several conservation hatchery 

programs have been implemented to preserve severely depressed Chinook populations while habitat 

needed to sustain the populations in a natural state is restored. 

•	 Negotiated a new Chinook harvest agreement as part of the Pacific Salmon Treaty re-negotiations: The United 

States achieved significant harvest reductions in west coast Canadian fisheries that will complement 

ongoing U.S. harvest measures to benefit listed Puget Sound populations. 

•	 Implemented hatchery management modifications: The implementation of hatchery reform measures—based 

to a significant extent on recommendations developed independently by the Hatchery Scientific 

Review Group (HSRG) and resulting from consultations between hatchery co-managers and 

NMFS—has led to operational changes that are expected to benefit natural Chinook populations. 

Specific threat-reduction measures for hatcheries to benefit natural populations are provided in two 

co-manager Puget Sound hatchery resource management plans and 115 Hatchery and Genetic 

Management Plans submitted to NMFS for evaluation and determination through the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and ESA processes. 

•	 Washington’s Puget Sound Partnership completed its 2020 Action Agenda, establishing a blueprint 

for recovery of the Puget Sound Ecosystem by 2020. 

•	 Approximately $110.3 million was awarded for 212 habitat restoration and protection projects. 

•	 Also during 2008–2010, restored 762 acres in the Nisqually Estuary with the completion of the 

exterior dikes initiated in 2008. 

•	 Began hatchery supplementation for the South Fork Nooksack population. 

•	 Began hatchery supplementation for the South Fork Stillaguamish population. 

•	 Removed five fish passage barriers and funded 26 fish passage barrier projects. 

•	 Funded 14 projects for riparian habitat invasive-species restoration. 

•	 Restored 7.96 miles of stream access and funded 46 stream access restoration projects. 

•	 Funded 43 projects for wetland habitat restoration. 

•	 Restored 9 acres of estuarine and freshwater habitat infested with invasive species and funded 89 

projects for estuarine and freshwater habitat invasive species restoration. 

•	 Restored 78.1 acres of estuarine and freshwater habitat and funded 105 projects for estuarine and 

freshwater habitat restoration. 

•	 Restored 23.37 miles of instream habitat and funded 235 instream habitat restoration projects. 

•	 Protected 8.22 miles of stream bank and funded 69 stream bank protection projects. 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 45 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: Priority recovery actions needed for this ESU include the following: 

•	 Restore degraded floodplain and channel structure. 

•	 Restore and protect estuarine habitat. 

•	 Improve and restore degraded riparian forests and increase large woody debris recruitment. 

•	 Restore natural sediment routing processes. 

•	 Improve water quality, particularly stormwater from paved surfaces and developed lands. 

•	 Curtail nearshore habitat loss and restore nearshore habitat quality. 

•	 Restore natural hydrologic processes and improve flow management. 

•	 Continue to apply measures that reduce the risk of adverse effects from hatchery and harvest 

management activities to survival and recovery. 

•	 Continue to implement conservation hatchery programs that preserve at-risk Chinook salmon 

populations, preventing their extinction until natural habitat can be restored. 

•	 Continue to implement hatchery operational and management measures developed by the comanagers, NMFS, and following recommendations from the HSRG, to reduce the risk of hatcheryrelated genetic, ecological, and demographic risks to natural-origin Chinook salmon populations. 

•	 Continue to manage Puget Sound fisheries to meet Rebuilding Exploitation Rates developed by 

NMFS and the co-managers to manage harvests at levels appropriate for the rebuilding of naturalorigin Chinook salmon populations to abundances that will meet spawning escapement targets and 

sustain fisheries. 

Recovery Priority Number: 1 

With a high magnitude of threat, high recovery potential, and the presence of conflict, this ESU has been 

assigned a recovery priority number of 1. The magnitude of threat to this ESU has been classified as high 

because of strong risks to its abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity (which largely have 

persisted since its status was first reviewed), and because this ESU faces a strong extinction risk in the 

foreseeable future. This ESU does not meet the criteria for a moderate magnitude of threat (which stipulate 

that the species will not face extinction if recovery is temporarily held off, although there is a continuing 

population decline or threat to its habitat). Delaying implementation of actions to recover this ESU would 

likely result in a mounting extinction risk rather than maintaining the status quo level of risk. The recovery 

potential for this ESU has also been classified as high. Although numerous factors limit the recovery of this 

ESU, the source of these factors and their demographic impacts are somewhat understood and recovery 

planning is being implemented. Although it would be cost-prohibitive to completely address every limiting 

factor, there is a general belief that integrated reduction of most threats can eventually achieve recovery of 

this ESU. Finally, as a complex variety of activities and management practices continue to affect the 

conservation and recovery of all Pacific salmon ESUs listed under the ESA, NMFS has determined “conflict” 

exists with regard to this ESU. Taken together, these three factors correspond to a recovery priority number 

of 1. 

46 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hood Canal Summer-Run Chum ESU (Oncorhynchus keta) 

Date Listed: March 25, 1999; reaffirmed 

June 28, 2005 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: The Hood Canal 

Coordinating Council (a regional council of 

governments) provided NMFS a locally 

developed recovery plan for Hood Canal 

Summer Chum in November 2005. NMFS 

published a Notice of Availability for the 

proposed recovery plan for the Hood Canal 

Summer Chum ESU in the Federal Register in 

August 2006 (71 FR 47180, NMFS 2006a). 

The final ESA Hood Canal Summer Chum 

Recovery Plan, with the NMFS Final Supplement to the Plan, was published in the Federal Register in May 

2007. 

Technical Recovery Team Products: The Puget Sound TRT identified two independent populations of 

Hood Canal Summer Chum and established draft population and ESU viability criteria in February 2007. 

Species Status: The spawning abundance of the Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon has clearly 

increased since the time of listing, although the recent abundance is down from the previous 5 years. While 

spawning abundances have remained relatively high compared to the low levels in the early 1990s, 

productivity has decreased significantly for the past 5 brood years, being lower for brood years 2002–2006 

than any previous 5‐year average since 1971. This is a concern for future production. The increase in 

abundance and decrease in productivity suggest that improvements in habitat and ecosystem function are 

needed. Diversity is increasing from the low values seen in the 1990s due both to the reintroduction of 

spawning aggregates into formerly occupied coastal streams and the more uniform relative abundance 

between populations. This is a good sign for viability in terms of spatial structure and diversity. Spawning 

survey data show that the spawning distribution within most streams has been extended further upstream as 

abundance has increased (WDFW and PNPTT 2007). Overall, the new information considered does not 

indicate a change in the biological risk category since the time of the last status review. 

Limiting Factors and Threats: Limiting factors and threats to the Hood Canal Summer-Run Chum ESU 

include the following: 

•	 Nearshore and estuarine habitat throughout the ESU has been altered by human activities. Nutrient 

loading disturbs the ecosystem’s natural nutrient and sediment balance. The low dissolved oxygen 

levels that result from nutrient loading can kill or stress marine organisms, including salmon. 

Residential and commercial development has reduced the amount of functioning habitat available for 

salmon rearing and migration. The loss of mudflats, eelgrass meadows, and macroalgae further limits 

salmon foraging and rearing opportunities in nearshore and estuarine areas. 

•	 Degraded freshwater habitat: floodplain connectivity and function, channel structure and complexity, 

riparian areas and large wood supply, stream substrate, and stream flow have been degraded as a 

result of cumulative impacts of agriculture, forestry, and development. 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 47 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Conservation Actions: Major accomplishments from 2008 to 2010 for this ESU include the following: 

•	 Conducted collaborative habitat restoration efforts with the Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife and the Point No Point Treaty Council; projects in the Jimmycomelately Creek in 

partnership with the Jamestown S’Klallam tribes; and other projects in the Quilcene, Snow/Salmon, 

Chimacum, Tahuya, and Dewatto watersheds. 

•	 Implemented eight ESA-approved conservation hatchery programs that preserved at-risk 

populations, bolstered the abundance of naturally spawning and natural-origin fish, and reintroduced 

summer chum salmon spawning in two watersheds where the native populations had become 

extirpated. Implemented measures at hatcheries producing other salmon species that reduce the risk 

of adverse impacts to summer chum salmon. 

•	 Continued to implement the Harvest Management component of the Summer Chum Salmon 

Conservation Initiative. Approved under ESA 4(d) Rule limit 6 in 2001, the plan establishes an 

annual fishing regime designed to minimize incidental take of summer chum salmon, while providing 

an opportunity for fisheries harvesting other salmon species. The regime includes complete closure 

of some terminal fisheries, non-retention of summer chum, and gear restrictions. Harvest rates in 

both the United States and Canada have been well below expectations. 

•	 Improved forest management practices on non-federal lands: implementation of forest practices 

consistent with the Washington Forest and Fish Agreement, to which NMFS is a party, will improve 

aquatic habitat conditions for fish and wildlife on state and private timber lands in Washington State. 

•	 Approved 4(d) limit for the Washington State Department of Transportation Routine Road
 

Maintenance activities. The limit is implemented by local governments.
 

•	 Completed several sections of the final Hood Canal Summer Chum salmon recovery plan. The Hood 

Canal Coordinating Council completed these sections of the plan. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: Conservation and recovery actions needed for this ESU include the 

following: 

•	 Restore degraded floodplain and channel structure. 

•	 Restore and protect estuarine habitat. 

•	 Restore degraded riparian forest and enhance large woody debris recruitment. 

•	 Restore natural sediment routing processes. 

•	 Restore natural hydrologic processes and improve flow management. 

•	 Continue to implement recovery-directed hatchery and harvest management actions. 

Recovery Priority Number: 1 

With a high magnitude of threat, high recovery potential, and the presence of conflict, this ESU has been 

assigned a recovery priority number of 1. The magnitude of threat to this ESU has been classified as high 

because of strong risks to its abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity (which largely have 

remained the same since its status was first reviewed), and the fact that this ESU faces a strong extinction risk 

in the foreseeable future. This ESU does not meet the criteria for a moderate magnitude of threat (which 

stipulate that the species will not face extinction if recovery is temporarily held off, although there is a 

continuing population decline or threat to its habitat). Delaying recovery for this ESU would likely result in 

mounting extinction risks rather than maintaining the status quo level of risk. The recovery potential for this 

ESU has also been classified as high. Although numerous factors limit the recovery of this ESU, the source of 

these factors and their demographic impacts are relatively well understood and recovery planning is currently 

underway. Although it may be cost-prohibitive to completely address every limiting factor, it is likely that 

integrated reduction of most threats can achieve recovery of this ESU. Finally, as a complex variety of 

activities and management practices continue to impact the conservation and recovery of all Pacific salmon 

ESUs listed under the ESA, NMFS has determined “conflict” exists with regard to this ESU. Taken together, 

these three factors correspond to a recovery priority number of 1. 

48 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ozette Lake Sockeye ESU (Oncorhynchus nerka) 

Date Listed: March 25, 1999; reaffirmed 

June 28, 2005 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: A proposed 

recovery plan was noticed for public 

comment on April 23, 2008 (73 FR 21913, 

NMFS 2008b) and a final recovery plan was 

adopted on May 29, 2009 (74 FR 25706). 

Species Status: Estimates of population 

data for Lake Ozette sockeye remain highly 

variable and uncertain. This makes it 

impossible to detect changes in abundance 

or in productivity in recent years. It is obvious, though, that population levels remain very low compared to 

historical levels when harvest on these stocks was plentiful. Assessment methods must improve in order to 

evaluate the status of this ESU and its responses to recovery actions. 

Limiting Factors and Threats: Limiting factors and threats to the Ozette Lake sockeye ESU include the 

following: 

•	 Degraded freshwater habitat: floodplain connectivity and function, channel structure and complexity, 

riparian areas and large wood supply, lake beach spawning habitat, and stream substrate have been 

degraded as a result of cumulative impacts of forest practices, agriculture, and development. 

•	 Predation: harbor seals and river otters, and predaceous non-native and native fish species, are having 

an adverse effect on the abundance of adult fish that successfully spawn, and on the abundance of 

sockeye smolts escaping seaward from the watershed each year. 

Conservation Actions: Major accomplishments from 2008–2010 for this ESU include the following: 

•	 Conducted quarterly multi-stakeholder Steering Committee meetings to develop and implement the 

Lake Ozette Sockeye Recovery Plan adopted on May 29, 2009. 

•	 Implemented a conservation hatchery program under the ESA-approved joint tribal-state Lake 

Ozette Sockeye Salmon Resource Management Plan that established a naturally spawning sockeye 

aggregation in an Ozette Lake tributary, and led to the collection of sockeye salmon life history and 

status information needed for recovery planning. 

•	 Approved the Washington State Department of Transportation’s Routine Road Maintenance 4(d) 

limit and its implementation by Clallam County. 

•	 Implemented forest practices consistent with the Washington Forest and Fish Agreement, to which 

NMFS is a party, which will improve aquatic habitat conditions for fish and wildlife on state and 

private timber lands in Washington State. 

•	 Continued harvest restrictions in place since the early 1980s specifying that no fisheries directed at 

Ozette Lake sockeye will occur until the population is recovered. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: Conservation and recovery actions needed for this ESU include the 

following: 

•	 Implement the recovery plan by developing action implementation and research/monitoring 

priorities and schedules and pursuing funding for plan actions. 

•	 Restore natural sediment routing processes. 

•	 Restore large woody debris recruitment and riparian habitat. 

•	 Restore degraded tributary and river habitat structure. 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 49 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• Control harbor seal, river otter, and fish predation. 

• Restore natural river and lake hydrologic processes. 

• Restore lake beach spawning habitat. 

Recovery Priority Number: 1 

With a high magnitude of threat, high recovery potential, and the presence of conflict, this ESU has been 

assigned a recovery priority number of 1. The magnitude of threat to this ESU has been classified as high, 

because of strong risks to its abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity (which largely have 

persisted since its status was first reviewed), and the fact that this ESU faces a strong extinction risk in the 

foreseeable future. This ESU does not meet the criteria for a moderate magnitude of threat (which stipulate 

that the species will not face extinction if recovery is temporarily held off, although there is a continuing 

population decline or threat to its habitat). Delaying recovery for this ESU would likely result in mounting 

extinction risks rather than maintaining the status quo level of risk. The recovery potential for this ESU has 

also been classified as high. Although numerous factors limit the recovery of this ESU, the source of these 

factors and their demographic impacts are relatively well understood and recovery planning is currently 

underway. Although it may be cost-prohibitive to completely address every limiting factor, it is likely that 

integrated reduction of most threats can achieve recovery of this ESU. Finally, as a complex variety of 

activities and management practices continue to affect the conservation and recovery of all Pacific salmon 

ESUs listed under the ESA, NMFS has determined “conflict” exists with regard to this ESU. Taken together, 

these three factors correspond to a recovery priority number of 1. 

50 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Puget Sound Steelhead DPS (Oncorhynchus mykiss) 

Date Listed: May 11, 2007 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: NFMS convened 

a TRT early in 2008 to identify the 

historical spawning populations of O. 

mykiss in Puget Sound and establish 

viability criteria for the listed DPS. That 

work is underway. 

Concurrent with the creation of the TRT, 

NMFS Northwest Regional Office began 

recovery planning for listed O. mykiss. 

NMFS drafted a recovery plan framework 

and initiated outreach to other recovery 

planning efforts in Puget Sound. NMFS 

anticipates continued coordination with the Puget Sound Partnership’s Salmon Recovery Council, 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Puget Sound tribal governments, and other interested parties 

as recovery plan development for Puget Sound steelhead proceeds. 

Upon completion of the population identification and viability criteria by the Puget Sound Steelhead TRT, 

NMFS will develop a draft recovery plan, including site specific actions necessary to achieve recovery of the 

DPS. 

Technical Recovery Team Products: The Puget Sound Steelhead TRT is identifying the historical 

spawning populations of Puget Sound steelhead within the listed DPS. Once that effort is concluded and 

populations are identified, the TRT will establish the viability criteria for Puget Sound steelhead. 

Species Status: NMFS determined that all naturally spawned winter-run and summer-run steelhead 

populations within the Puget Sound DPS are threatened. The Puget Sound steelhead range extends from the 

river basins of the Strait of Juan de Fuca, Puget Sound, and Hood Canal, Washington, bounded to the west 

by the Elwha River and to the north by the Nooksack River and Dakota Creek (inclusive). The listed group 

of steelhead includes only anadromous (ocean-going) forms of O. mykiss, but not resident forms (commonly 

called rainbow trout). The listed DPS also includes two winter-run steelhead hatchery stocks: the Green River 

natural and Hamma Hamma River stocks. 

The status of the listed Puget Sound steelhead DPS has not changed substantially since the 2007 listing. Most 

populations within the DPS are showing continued downward trends in estimated abundance, a few sharply 

so. Most of the demographically independent populations of steelhead in Puget Sound show declining redd 

counts, typically 3 to 10 percent annually. Extinction risk within 100 years for most populations in the DPS is 

estimated to be moderate to high, especially for populations in the putative South Sound and Olympic Major 

Population Groups tentatively identified by the Puget Sound Steelhead TRT. This indicates that steelhead in 

the Puget Sound DPS remain at risk of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of their range in the 

foreseeable future, but are not currently in danger of imminent extinction. 

Limiting Factors and Threats: Primary biological concerns include: (1) the widespread declines in adult 

abundance (total run size), despite significant reductions in harvest in recent years; (2) the threats to diversity 

posed by use of two hatchery steelhead stocks (Chambers Creek and Skamania) inconsistent with wild stock 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 51 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

diversity throughout the DPS; (3) the declining diversity in the DPS, including the uncertain but weak status 

of summer-run fish in the DPS; and (4) a reduction in spatial structure for steelhead in the DPS. 

Habitat utilization by steelhead has been most affected by reductions in habitat quality 

and by fragmentation. A number of large dams in Puget Sound basins have affected steelhead. In addition to 

eliminating accessibility to habitat, dams affect habitat quality through changes in river hydrology, 

temperature profile, downstream gravel recruitment, and the movement of large woody debris. Many of the 

lower reaches of rivers and their tributaries in Puget Sound have been dramatically altered by urban 

development. Urbanization and suburbanization have resulted in the loss of historical land cover in exchange 

for large areas of impervious surface (buildings, roads, parking lots, etc.). 

The loss of wetland and riparian habitat has dramatically changed the hydrology of many 

urban streams. This shift in hydrology results in a reduction in floodplain connectivity and function, which 

increases flood frequency and peak flow during storm events, and results in decreases in groundwater-driven 

summer flows. Flood events result in gravel scour, bank erosion, and sediment deposition. Land development 

for agricultural purposes has also altered the historical land cover. However, because much of this 

development took place in river floodplains, there has been a direct impact on river morphology. River 

braiding and sinuosity have been reduced through the construction of dikes, hardening of banks with riprap, 

and channelization of the mainstem. Constriction of rivers, especially during high flow events, increases 

likelihood of gravel scour and dislocation of rearing juveniles. 

Conservation Actions: Major accomplishments from 2008 to 2010 for this DPS include the following: 

•	 Improved forest management practices on non-federal lands: implementation of forest practices 

consistent with the Washington Forest and Fish Agreement, to which NMFS is a party, will improve 

aquatic habitat conditions for fish and wildlife on state and private timber lands in Washington State. 

•	 Approved 4(d) limit for the Washington State Department of Transportation Routine Road
 

Maintenance activities. The limit is implemented by local governments.
 

•	 Planned dam removal: Completed ESA section 7 consultation with the Olympic National Park on 

the removal of two dams on the Elwha River that have blocked salmon access to 70 miles of habitat 

since the early 1900s. The removal of these two dams beginning in 2012 will greatly aid salmon and 

steelhead recovery in this system. The project will restore freshwater habitat access, improve habitat 

conditions within the watershed, and improve estuary habitat at the mouth of the Elwha River. 

•	 Improved harvest and hatchery management: NMFS worked with the Washington State and Puget 

Sound tribal co-managers on the development of a harvest management plan for Puget Sound wild 

steelhead. We are currently reviewing the plan for consistency with ESA requirements. 

•	 Implemented hatchery management modifications: the implementation of hatchery reform 

measures—based to a significant extent on recommendations developed independently by the 

HSRG, and resulting from consultations between hatchery co-managers and NMFS—has led to 

operational changes, including the recent implementation of six native stock conservation hatchery 

programs, cessation of truck planting of hatchery steelhead that has previously led to increased 

straying, and increased use of weirs to remove hatchery fish. These measures are expected to benefit 

natural steelhead populations. Other specific threat-reduction measures for hatcheries that will 

benefit natural populations are being developed by the co-managers in 18 Hatchery and Genetic 

Management Plans under review through ongoing NEPA and ESA evaluation processes. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: Priority recovery actions needed for this ESU include the following: 

•	 Restore degraded floodplain and channel structure. 

•	 Improve and restore degraded riparian forests and increase large woody debris recruitment. 

•	 Restore natural sediment routing processes. 

•	 Improve water quality, particularly stormwater from paved surfaces and developed lands. 

•	 Restore natural hydrologic processes and improve flow management. 

52 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

•	 Continue to apply measures that reduce the risk of adverse effects from hatchery and harvest
 

management activities to survival and recovery.
 

•	 Continue implementation of steelhead and salmon hatchery risk minimization measures that will 

reduce hatchery-related genetic, ecological, and demographic threats to natural-origin steelhead 

populations. 

Recovery Priority Number: 1 

With a high magnitude of threat, high recovery potential, and the presence of conflict, this DPS has been 

assigned a recovery priority number of 1. The magnitude of threat to this DPS has been classified as high 

because of strong risks to its abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity, and because this DPS 

faces a strong extinction risk in the foreseeable future. This DPS does not meet the criteria for a moderate 

magnitude of threat (which stipulate that the species will not face extinction if recovery is temporarily held 

off, although there is a continuing population decline or threat to its habitat). Delaying implementation of 

actions to recover this DPS would likely result in a mounting extinction risk rather than maintaining the status 

quo level of risk. The recovery potential for this DPS has also been classified as high. Although numerous 

factors limit the recovery of this DPS, the source of these factors and their demographic impacts are 

somewhat understood and recovery planning is being initiated. Although it would be cost-prohibitive to 

completely address every limiting factor, there is a general belief that integrated reduction of most threats can 

eventually achieve recovery of this DPS. Finally, as a complex variety of activities and management practices 

continue to affect the conservation and recovery of all Pacific salmon DPSs and ESUs listed under the ESA, 

NMFS has determined “conflict” exists with regard to this DPS. Taken together, these three factors 

correspond to a recovery priority number of 1. 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 53 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Upper Willamette River Chinook ESU (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) 

Date Listed: March 24, 1999; reaffirmed 

June 28, 2005 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: The 

Willamette/Lower Columbia TRT has 

identified independent populations and 

completed the population and ESU 

viability criteria. Notice that the proposed 

recovery plan for this ESU was available 

for public comment was published in the 

Federal Register on October 22, 2010 (75 FR 

65299). 

Species Status: Two related status evaluations of Upper Willamete River Chinook salmon have been 

conducted since the last status review in 2005 (McElhany et al. 2007, ODFW 2010). Both evaluations were 

based on the Willamette/Lower Columbia TRT viability criteria and both concluded that the ESU is currently 

at very high risk of extinction. Of the seven historical populations in the ESU, five are considered at very high 

risk. The remaining two (Clackamas and McKenzie) are considered at moderate to low risk. New data 

collected since the last status review have verified the high fraction of hatchery origin fish in all of the 

populations in the ESU (even the Clackamas and McKenzie have hatchery fractions above Willamette/Lower 

Columbia TRT viability thresholds). The new data have also highlighted the substantial risks associated with 

pre‐spawning mortality. Although the proposed recovery plan targets key limiting factors for future actions, 

there have been no significant on‐the‐ground actions since the last status review to resolve the lack of access 

to historical habitat above dams, nor have there been substantial actions removing hatchery fish from the 

spawning grounds. Overall, the new information considered does not indicate a change in the biological risk 

category since the time of the last status review. 

Limiting Factors and Threats: Limiting factors and threats to the Upper Willamette River Chinook ESU 

include the following: 

•	 Significantly reduced access to spawning and rearing habitat because of tributary dams. 

•	 Degraded freshwater habitat, especially floodplain connectivity and function, channel structure and 

complexity, and riparian areas and large wood recruitment as a result of cumulative impacts of 

agriculture, forestry, and development. 

•	 Degraded water quality and altered temperature as a result of both tributary dams and the cumulative 

impacts of agriculture, forestry, and urban development. 

•	 Hatchery-related effects. 

•	 Ocean harvest rates are approximately 30 percent. 

Conservation Actions: Major accomplishments from 2008 to 2010 for this ESU include the following: 

•	 ESA section 7 consultation completed between NMFS and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. 

Bureau of Reclamation, and Bonneville Power Administration on the continued operation of 13 

multipurpose dams in the Willamette Basin. Beneficial actions to the ESU that are called for in the 

Biological Opinion and Reasonable and Prudent Alternative (RPA) include: enhanced upstream fish 

passage (the dams block access to most historical spawning habitat for this ESU), retrofitting of 

dams to provide more normative temperature regimes below the projects, enhanced downstream 

passage at certain projects, and enhanced flow management to ensure safe migration, spawning, 

incubation, and rearing. 

54 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

•	 ESA consultation at hydroelectric projects as part of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

(FERC) re-licensing, new licenses, and settlement agreements. Benefits to salmonids include 

improved streamflows, habitat restoration, gravel augmentation below dams for spawning, and 

improved upstream and downstream fish passage at dams. Improvements were made at Willamette 

Falls Dam, Albany/Lebanon Dam, and Upper Bennett Dam. Agreements also were made for 

improvements at Clackamas, Dorena, and Trail Bridge dams in the coming years. 

•	 As a result of NMFS’ Open Rivers Initiative, the Brownsville Dam on the Calapooia River was 

removed and a second dam was removed. 

•	 Habitat restoration projects: Hundreds of projects during 2008–2010 have improved riparian areas, fish 

passage at culvert barriers, and stream and floodplain function. ESA section 7 programmatic 

consultation with the U.S. Corps of Engineers was completed in 2008 to expedite permitting of these 

types of salmonid recovery actions. 

•	 Improved forest management practices on federal lands: The Northwest Forest Plan Aquatic Conservation 

Strategy continued in 2008–2010. The strategy is designed to conserve and restore salmon and 

steelhead habitat, and to provide an anchor for federal lands’ contribution to salmon recovery. 

•	 Hatchery reforms: Recent changes have helped develop locally adapted broodstocks and reintroduced 

fish into habitats above impassable dams to explore the potential for reestablishing self-sustaining 

populations in those areas. 

•	 Harvest reforms: Selective fisheries continue to be successfully implemented and have reduced impacts 

to wild fish by more than 75 percent while still allowing recreational and commercial fisheries. 

Overall harvest impacts remain at or below 25 percent. 

•	 Harvest reforms: In a new Chinook harvest agreement as part of the Pacific Salmon Treaty renegotiations, the United States achieved significant harvest reductions in west coast Canadian 

fisheries that will complement ongoing U.S. harvest measures to benefit listed Upper Willamette 

Chinook. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: Priority recovery actions needed for this ESU include the following: 

•	 Congressional authorization and funding for the new recovery actions described in the section 7 

biological opinion on the 13 federal dams in the Willamette Basin—an ESA consultation between 

NMFS and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and Bonneville Power 

Administration. 

•	 Improved land use practices to protect existing high-quality habitat and prevent further degradation, 

along with continued, targeted restoration of other priority locations and issues identified in the 

proposed recovery plan. Protection and restoration are particularly important in lowland floodplain 

stream reaches where channel complexity and floodplain connectivity are severely degraded. 

•	 Continued improvements in hatchery management to reduce genetic risks, improve hatchery 

Chinook survival for recovery efforts, and minimize impacts from non-native summer steelhead. 

Recovery Priority Number: 1 

With a high magnitude of threat, high recovery potential, and the presence of conflict, this ESU has been 

assigned a recovery priority number of 1. The magnitude of threat to this ESU has been classified as high 

because of very high risks to its abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity (which largely have 

persisted since its status was first reviewed), and because this ESU faces a high extinction risk in the 

foreseeable future. This ESU does not meet the criteria for a moderate magnitude of threat (which stipulate 

that the species will not face extinction if recovery is temporarily held off, although there is a continuing 

population decline or threat to its habitat). Delaying recovery for this ESU would likely result in mounting 

extinction risks rather than maintaining the status quo level of risk. The recovery potential for this ESU has 

also been classified as high. Although numerous factors limit the recovery of this ESU, the source of many, 

but not all, of these factors and their demographic impacts are relatively well understood and recovery 

planning is currently underway. Although it may be cost-prohibitive to completely address every limiting 

factor, it is likely that integrated reduction of most threats can achieve recovery of this ESU, particularly if the 

corrective actions for the federal dams are implemented. Finally, as a complex variety of activities and 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 55 
management practices continue to impact the conservation and recovery of all Pacific salmon ESUs listed 

under the ESA, NMFS has determined “conflict” exists with regard to this ESU. Taken together, these three 

factors correspond to a recovery priority number of 1. 

56 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lower Columbia River Chinook ESU (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) 

Date Listed: March 24, 1999; reaffirmed 

June 28, 2005 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: 

A recovery plan for the Washington portion 

of the ESU was completed by Washington’s 

Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board and, 

after public comment, approved by NMFS 

in February 2006 as an Interim Regional 

Recovery Plan. The Lower Columbia River 

Fish Recovery Board updated this plan in 

2010, and the Oregon Fish and Wildlife 

Commission adopted a plan for the Oregon 

portion of the ESU. NMFS will combine these plans, along with a plan for the White Salmon basin, and 

make a draft ESU-level plan, along with the three management unit plans, available in the fall of 2011. 

Technical Recovery Team Products: The Willamette/Lower Columbia TRT has identified independent 

populations and completed population and ESU viability criteria and ESU recovery goals for this ESU. 

Species Status: Three status evaluations of LCR Chinook, all based on Willamette/Lower Columbia TRT 

criteria, have been conducted since the last status update in 2005 (McElhany et al. 2007, ODFW 2010, 

LCFRB 2010). All three evaluations concluded that the ESU is currently at very high risk of extinction. Of 

the 32 historical populations in the ESU, 28 are considered extirpated or at very high risk. Based on the 

recovery plan analyses, all of the tule populations are considered very high risk, except one that is considered 

at high risk. Modeling conducted in association with tule harvest management suggests that three of the 

populations (Coweeman, Lewis, and Washougal) are at a somewhat lower risk. However, even these more 

optimistic evaluations suggest that the remaining 18 populations are at substantial risk because of very low 

natural origin spawner abundance (<100/population), high hatchery fraction, habitat degradation, and harvest 

impacts. Lower Columbia River spring Chinook populations remain cut off from access to essential spawning 

habitat by hydroelectric dams. Projects to allow access have been initiated in the Cowlitz and Lewis systems 

but have yet to produce self‐sustaining populations. The Sandy spring Chinook population, without a 

mainstem dam, is considered at moderate risk and is the only spring Chinook salmon population in this ESU 

not considered extirpated or nearly so. The Hood River currently contains an out‐of‐ESU hatchery stock. 

The two late fall populations, Lewis and Sandy, are the only populations considered at low or very low risk. 

They contain relatively few hatchery fish and have maintained high spawner abundances (especially Lewis) 

since the last status review. 

Limiting Factors and Threats: Limiting factors and threats to the Lower Columbia River Chinook ESU 

include the following: 

•	 Degraded estuarine and near-shore marine habitat resulting from cumulative impacts of land use and 

flow management by the Columbia River hydropower system. 

•	 Degraded freshwater habitat: floodplain connectivity and function, channel structure and complexity, 

riparian areas, stream substrate, stream flow, and water quality have been degraded as a result of 

cumulative impacts of agriculture, forestry, and development. 

•	 Reduced access to spawning and rearing habitat mainly as a result of tributary hydropower projects. 

•	 Hatchery-related effects. 

•	 Harvest-related effects to fall Chinook salmon. 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 57 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Conservation Actions: Major accomplishments for this ESU from 2008 to 2010 include the following: 

•	 Tributary hydropower operational changes and agreements for dam removal: Continued implementation of 

FERC Re-licensing Settlement Agreements for the Cowlitz, Lewis, and Clackamas rivers. These 

agreements included reintroduction efforts into previously blocked habitat, improved flow releases, 

dam passage survival studies, plans for passage improvements, hatchery reforms, and habitat 

improvements. In addition, implementation of FERC de-commissioning settlement agreements 

resulted in the removal of Marmot Dam and the Little Sandy River Dam from the Sandy River, in 

2007 and 2008 respectively, and of Powerdale Dam from the Hood River in 2010, restoring 

unimpeded passage to upstream habitat in those basins. 

•	 Habitat restoration projects: Hundreds of local restoration projects have improved riparian areas, fish 

passage at culvert barriers, and stream and floodplain function. 

•	 Improved forest management practices on federal lands and some state and private lands: The Northwest Forest 

Plan Aquatic Conservation Strategy continued in 2008–2010. The strategy is designed to conserve 

and restore salmon and steelhead habitat and to provide an anchor for federal lands’ contribution to 

salmon recovery. In addition, implementation of the Forest Practices HCP, which covers 9.3 million 

acres of private timber land in Washington and which NMFS approved in 2005, is well underway. 

The plan ensures functional watershed conditions and riparian habitats as state forest practice rules 

are implemented for the recovery of listed salmonids. In addition, a separate HCP for Washington 

State Forest Trust Lands provides assurances for a high level of ecological function on those state 

forest 

•	 Hatchery reforms: The HSRG evaluated hatchery programs to identify additional reforms needed to 

ensure that hatcheries benefit conservation efforts and reduce risks to the ESU. NMFS and comanagers are using this report, along with additional science-based recommendations, to identify and 

implement additional reforms. Reforms that are complete or underway for Lower Columbia River 

Chinook include hatchery closures, production changes, and installation of weirs on the Grays, 

Washougal, and North Fork Toutle rivers to trap and remove non-local hatchery fish. Also, as of 

2008, all hatchery production is externally marked to allow for selective harvest and evaluation of 

hatchery and natural escapement to spawning grounds. 

•	 Harvest reforms and implementation of Fisheries Management and Evaluation Plans: Since this ESU’s listing, 

harvest rates have been steadily reduced, from approximately 70 percent to below 40 percent. The 

U.S. and Canadian governments approved a new agreement under the Pacific Salmon Treaty that will 

reduce harvest impacts on Lower Columbia River fall Chinook salmon by 3 percent relative to the 

previous agreement, as a result of significant reductions (15 percent and 30 percent, respectively) in 

the Southeast Alaskan and West Coast Vancouver Island Canadian fisheries. NMFS will use its 

authorities over U.S. ocean fisheries to ensure that the benefits of these reductions accrue to naturally 

produced Lower Columbia River fall Chinook salmon. Mark-selective fisheries for spring Chinook 

continue to be implemented to maintain low harvest rates on naturally produced spring Chinook 

salmon. A 2008 agreement, and NMFS ESA Biological Opinion for managing Columbia River tribal 

and non-tribal fishing, protects 13 ESUs and steelhead DPSs in the Columbia Basin, including Lower 

Columbia River Chinook. The Federal Court, under the authority of U.S. v. Oregon, has adopted the 

new agreement and Biological Opinion. Parties to the agreement include the states of Washington, 

Oregon, and Idaho; the Umatilla, Yakama, Nez Perce, and Warm Springs tribes; the FWS; and 

NMFS. 

•	 The 2010 Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) Supplemental Biological Opinion, which 

integrates the 2008 RPA and the Adaptive Management Implementation Plan, 

 Includes a habitat program to protect and improve estuary habitat. 

 Supports hatchery reforms. 

 Expands efforts to reduce juvenile and adult losses from predation by birds, other fish, and 

marine mammals. 

58 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: Priority recovery actions needed for this ESU include the following: 

•	 Continued implementation of locally developed plans for the Oregon and Southwest Washington 

portions of this ESU, and of the plan that NMFS developed, with local participation, for the White 

Salmon portion of the ESU. 

•	 Continued implementation of tributary hydropower re-licensing agreements in the Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Hood, Sandy, and Clackamas basins to achieve operational changes, reintroduction into previously 

blocked habitats, improved fish passage, and flow management. 

•	 Implementation of recovery actions to reestablish Chinook salmon in the White Salmon River after 

removal of Condit Dam. 

•	 Improved land use practices to protect existing high-quality tributary and estuarine habitats and 

prevent further degradation, along with continued, targeted habitat restoration based on priority 

issues and locations identified in recovery plans. 

•	 Improvements to hatchery practices, including continued marking of all hatchery fall Chinook, 

updating adult traps and weirs, using alternate release strategies, developing localized broodstocks; 

and implementation of applicable HSRG and other science-based recommendations. 

•	 Improved fisheries management to address impacts to Lower Columbia River fall Chinook salmon 

(e.g., by developing additional reference populations by which to gauge harvest impacts and help 

guide harvest management decisions implementing mark-selective fisheries when feasible as a tool to 

sustain important fisheries, implementing abundance-based management when feasible, and applying 

weak-stock management principles). 

Recovery Priority Number: 1 

With a high magnitude of threat, high recovery potential, and the presence of conflict, this ESU has been 

assigned a recovery priority number of 1. The magnitude of threat to this ESU has been classified as high 

because of strong risks to its abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity (which largely have 

persisted since its status was first reviewed), and because this ESU faces a strong extinction risk in the 

foreseeable future. This ESU does not meet the criteria for a moderate magnitude of threat (which stipulate 

that the species will not face extinction if recovery is temporarily held off, although there is a continuing 

population decline or threat to its habitat). Delaying recovery for this ESU would likely result in mounting 

extinction risks rather than maintaining the status quo level of risk. The recovery potential for this ESU has 

also been classified as high. Although numerous factors limit the recovery of this ESU, the source of these 

factors and their demographic impacts are relatively well understood and recovery planning is currently 

underway. Although it may be cost-prohibitive to completely address every limiting factor, it is likely that 

integrated reduction of most threats can achieve recovery of this ESU. Finally, as a complex variety of 

activities and management practices continue to impact the conservation and recovery of all Pacific salmon 

ESUs listed under the ESA, NMFS has determined “conflict” exists with regard to this ESU. Taken together, 

these three factors correspond to a recovery priority number of 1. 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 59 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lower Columbia River Steelhead DPS (Oncorhynchus mykiss) 

Date Listed: March 19, 1998; reclassified as a 

DPS January 5, 2006 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: 

A recovery plan for the Washington portion 

of the DPS was completed by Washington’s 

Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board and, 

after public comment, approved by NMFS in 

February 2006 as an interim recovery plan. 

The Lower Columbia River Fish Recovery 

Board updated this plan in 2010, and the 

Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission 

adopted a plan for the Oregon portion of the 

DPS. NMFS will combine these plans, along with a plan for the White Salmon basin, and make a draft ESUlevel plan, along with the three management unit plans, available in fall 2011. 

Technical Recovery Team Products: The Willamette/Lower Columbia TRT has identified independent 

populations and completed the population and ESU viability criteria. 

Species Status: Three evaluations of Lower Columbia River steelhead status, all based on 

Willamette/Lower Columbia TRT criteria, have been conducted since the last status update in 2005 

(McElhany et al. 2007, ODFW 2010, LCFRB 2010). All three evaluations concluded that the DPS is currently 

at high risk of extinction. Of the 26 historical populations in the DPS, 17 are considered at high or very high 

risk. Populations in the upper Lewis, Cowlitz, and White Salmon watersheds remain cut off from access to 

essential spawning habitat by hydroelectric dams. Projects to allow access have been initiated in the Cowlitz 

and Lewis systems but have not yet produced self‐sustaining populations. The populations generally remain at 

relatively low abundance with relatively low productivity. 

Limiting Factors and Threats: Threats and impacts to the Lower Columbia River steelhead DPS include 

the following: 

•	 Degraded estuarine and nearshore marine habitat resulting from cumulative impacts of land use and 

flow management by the Columbia River hydropower system. 

•	 Degraded freshwater habitat: floodplain connectivity and function, channel structure and complexity, 

riparian areas and recruitment of large wood, stream substrate, stream flow, and water quality have 

been degraded as a result of cumulative impacts of agriculture, forestry, and development. 

•	 Reduced access to spawning and rearing habitat as a result of tributary hydropower projects and 

lowland development. 

•	 Avian and marine mammal predation in the lower mainstem Columbia River and estuary. 

•	 Hatchery-related effects. 

Conservation Actions: Major accomplishments for this DPS from 2008 to 2010 include the following: 

•	 Hydropower operational changes and agreements for dam removal: Continued implementation of FERC Relicensing Settlement Agreements for the Cowlitz, Lewis, and Clackamas rivers. These agreements 

included reintroduction efforts into previously blocked habitat, improved flow releases, dam passage 

survival studies, plans for passage improvements, hatchery reforms, and habitat improvements. In 

addition, implementation of FERC de-commissioning settlement agreements resulted in the removal 

of Marmot Dam and the Little Sandy River Dam from the Sandy River, in 2007 and 2008 

60 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

respectively, and of Powerdale Dam from the Hood River in 2010, restoring unimpeded passage to 

upstream habitat in those basins. 

•	 Habitat restoration projects: Hundreds of local restoration projects have improved riparian areas, fish 

passage at culvert barriers, and stream and floodplain function. 

•	 Improved forest management practices on federal lands and some state and private lands: The Northwest Forest 

Plan Aquatic Conservation Strategy continued in 2008–2010. The strategy is designed to conserve 

and restore salmon and steelhead habitat and to provide an anchor for federal lands’ contribution to 

salmon recovery. In addition, implementation of the Forest Practices HCP, which covers 9.3 million 

acres of private timber land in Washington and which NMFS approved in 2005, is well underway, 

formally recognizing the conservation value of state forest practice rules to the recovery of listed 

salmonids. 

•	 Hatchery reforms: The HSRG evaluated hatchery programs to identify additional reforms needed to 

ensure that hatcheries benefit conservation efforts and reduce risks to the DPS. NMFS and comanagers are using this report, along with additional science-based recommendations, to identify and 

implement additional reforms. 

•	 Improved management of in-river fisheries through the implementation of Fisheries Management 

and Evaluation Plans designed to minimize impacts from fisheries on wild steelhead. Reductions in 

impacts to juvenile steelhead from resident trout fisheries have been maintained; harvest impacts on 

wild steelhead are reduced from a historical high of 75 percent to an overall impact of 8.5 percent. 

Co-managers are evaluating whether alternative harvest methods are feasible and could reduce 

harvest impacts further. A 2008 agreement and NMFS ESA Biological Opinion for managing 

Columbia River tribal and non-tribal fishing protects 13 ESUs and steelhead DPSs in the Columbia 

Basin, including Lower Columbia River steelhead. The Federal Court, under the authority of U.S. v. 

Oregon, has adopted the new agreement and Biological Opinion. Parties to the agreement include the 

states of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho; the Umatilla, Yakama, Nez Perce, and Warm Springs 

tribes; the FWS; and NMFS. 

•	 The 2010 FCRPS Supplemental Biological Opinion, which integrates the 2008 RPA and the Adaptive 

Management Implementation Plan, 

 Includes a habitat program to protect and improve tributary and estuary habitat. 

 Supports hatchery reforms. 

 Expands efforts to reduce juvenile and adult losses from predation by birds, other fish, and 

marine mammals. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: Priority recovery actions needed for this DPS include the following: 

•	 Continued implementation of locally developed plans for the Oregon and Southwest Washington 

portions of this ESU, and of the plan that NMFS developed with local participation, for the White 

Salmon portion of the ESU. 

•	 Continued implementation of tributary hydropower relicensing agreements in the Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Hood, Sandy, and Clackamas basins to achieve operational changes, reintroduction into previously 

blocked habitats, improved fish passage, and flow management. 

•	 Improved land use practices to protect existing high-quality habitat and prevent further degradation, 

along with continued, targeted restoration based on priority locations and issues identified in 

recovery plans. Protection and restoration of lowland off-channel habitats are particularly important. 

•	 Further improvements to hatchery practices, including continued reform. 

Recovery Priority Number: 1 

With a high magnitude of threat, high recovery potential, and the presence of conflict, this DPS has been 

assigned a recovery priority number of 1. The magnitude of threat to this DPS has been classified as high 

because of strong risks to its abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity (which largely have 

persisted since its status was first reviewed), and because this DPS faces a strong extinction risk in the 

foreseeable future. This DPS does not meet the criteria for a moderate magnitude of threat (which stipulate 

that the species will not face extinction if recovery is temporarily held off, although there is a continuing 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 61 
 

 

 

population decline or threat to its habitat). Delaying recovery for this DPS would likely result in mounting 

extinction risks rather than maintaining the status quo level of risk. The recovery potential for this DPS has 

also been classified as high. Although numerous factors limit the recovery of this DPS, the source of these 

factors and their demographic impacts are relatively well understood and recovery planning is currently 

underway. Although it may be cost-prohibitive to completely address every limiting factor, it is likely that 

integrated reduction of most threats can achieve recovery of this DPS. Finally, as a complex variety of 

activities and management practices continue to impact the conservation and recovery of all Pacific salmon 

and steelhead ESUs and DPSs listed under the ESA, NMFS has determined “conflict” exists with regard to 

this DPS. Taken together, these three factors correspond to a recovery priority number of 1. 

62 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lower Columbia River Coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch) 

Date Listed: June 28, 2005 (Originally part of a larger Lower Columbia River/Southwest Washington ESU) 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: The Lower Columbia River Fish Recovery Board has completed a plan for the 

southwest Washington portion of this ESU, and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has completed 

a plan for the Oregon portion of the ESU. NMFS will combine these plans, along with a plan for the White 

Salmon basin, and make a draft ESU-level plan, along with the three management unit plans, available in the 

fall of 2011. 

Technical Recovery Team Products: The Willamette/Lower Columbia TRT has identified independent 

populations and completed the population and ESU viability criteria. 

Species Status: Three status evaluations of Lower Columbia River coho salmon status, all based on 

Willamette/Lower Columbia TRT criteria, have been conducted since the last status review in 2005 

(McElhany et al. 2007, ODFW 2010, LCFRB 2010). All three evaluations concluded that the ESU is currently 

at very high risk of extinction. Of the 27 historical populations in the ESU, 24 are considered at very high 

risk. The remaining three (Sandy, Clackamas, and Scapposse) are considered at high to moderate risk. All of 

the Washington populations are considered at very high risk, although uncertainty is high because of a lack of 

adult spawner surveys. As was noted in the 2005 status review, smolt traps indicate some natural production 

in Washington populations, although, given the high fraction of hatchery origin spawners suspected to occur 

in these populations, it is not clear that any are self‐sustaining. 

Limiting Factors and Threats: Limiting factors and threats to the Lower Columbia River coho ESU 

include the following: 

•	 Degraded estuarine and near-shore marine habitat resulting from cumulative impacts of land use and 

flow management by the Columbia River hydropower system. 

•	 Degraded freshwater habitat: floodplain connectivity and function, channel structure and complexity, 

riparian areas and large wood supply, stream substrate, stream flow, and water quality have been 

degraded as a result of cumulative impacts of agriculture, forestry, and development. 

•	 Hatchery-related effects. 

•	 Harvest-related effects. 

Conservation Actions: Major accomplishments for this ESU from 2008 to 2010 include the following: 

•	 Tributary hydropower operational changes and agreements for dam removal: Implementation of FERC Relicensing Settlement Agreements for the Cowlitz, Lewis, and Clackamas rivers has continued. These 

agreements included reintroduction efforts into previously blocked habitat, improved flow releases, 

dam passage survival studies, plans for passage improvements, hatchery reforms, and habitat 

improvements. In addition, implementation of FERC de-commissioning settlement agreements 

resulted in the removal of Marmot Dam and the Little Sandy River Dam in 2007 and 2008 

respectively, and of Powerdale Dam from the Hood River in 2010, restoring unimpeded passage to 

upstream habitat in those basins. 

•	 Habitat restoration projects: Hundreds of projects have improved riparian areas, fish passage at culvert 

barriers, and stream and floodplain function. 

•	 Improved forest management practices on federal lands and some state and private lands: The Northwest Forest 

Plan Aquatic Conservation Strategy continued in 2008–2010. The strategy is designed to conserve 

and restore salmon and steelhead habitat and to provide an anchor for federal lands’ contribution to 

salmon recovery. In addition, implementation of the Forest Practices HCP, which covers 9.3 million 

acres of private timber land in Washington and which NMFS approved in 2005, is well underway. 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 63 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This plan ensures functional watershed conditions and riparian habitats as state forest practice rules 

are implemented for the recovery of listed salmonids. In addition, a separate HCP for Washington 

State Forest Trust Lands provides assurances for a high level of ecological function on those state 

forest lands. 

•	 Hatchery reforms: Hatchery reforms have included integrating some coho hatchery programs with local 

natural-origin populations to increase abundance and reduce adverse impacts of hatcheries, program 

closures, and production changes. Hatchery coho continue to be externally marked so that fisheries 

can target hatchery coho and to allow identification of hatchery and wild fish at weirs and traps, on 

the spawning grounds, and during broodstock collection. The HSRG evaluated hatchery programs to 

identify additional reforms needed to ensure that hatcheries benefit conservation efforts and reduce 

risks to the ESU. NMFS and co-managers are using this report, along with additional science-based 

recommendations, to identify and implement additional reforms. 

•	 Harvest reforms: The marking of hatchery coho salmon continues to allow implementation of selective 

commercial and recreational fisheries for coho salmon, reducing impacts to wild coho salmon from 

85 percent to 18 percent. A new coho agreement under the Pacific Salmon Treaty (see discussion 

under the LCR Chinook salmon ESU section of this report) will continue to constrain ocean fishery 

impacts depending on the annual status of natural populations of coho in Canadian and Washington 

and Oregon fisheries. A 2008 agreement and NMFS ESA Biological Opinion for managing 

Columbia River tribal and non-tribal fishing protects 13 ESUs and steelhead DPSs in the Columbia 

Basin, including Lower Columbia River coho. The Federal Court, under the authority of U.S. v. 

Oregon, has adopted the new agreement and Biological Opinion. Parties to the agreement include the 

states of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho; the Umatilla, Yakama, Nez Perce, and Warm Springs 

tribes; the FWS; and NMFS. 

•	 The 2010 FCRPS Supplemental Biological Opinion, which integrates the 2008 RPA and the Adaptive 

Management Implementation Plan, 

 Includes a habitat program to protect and improve estuary habitat. 

 Supports hatchery reforms. 

	 Expands efforts to reduce juvenile and adult loses from predation by birds, other fish, and 

marine mammals. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: Priority recovery actions needed for this ESU include the following: 

•	 Continued implementation of locally developed plans for the Oregon and Southwest Washington 

portions of this ESU and of the plan that NMFS developed, with local participation, for the White 

Salmon portion of the ESU. 

•	 Continued implementation of tributary hydropower relicensing agreements in the Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Hood, Sandy, and Clackamas basins to achieve operational changes, reintroduction into previously 

blocked habitats, improved fish passage, and flow management. 

•	 Implementation of recovery plan actions to re-establish coho salmon into the White Salmon River 

after removal of Condit Dam. 

•	 Improved land use practices to protect existing high-quality tributary habitats and prevent further 

degradation, along with continued, targeted restoration based on priority locations and issues 

identified in recovery plans. 

•	 Increased monitoring of natural-origin populations to provide statistically reliable estimates of 

abundance and proportion of natural-origin fish. 

•	 Improvements at hatchery facilities to implement hatchery reforms. 

•	 Further adjustments to coho harvest management through refinement of the existing coho harvest 

management matrix, continued use of mark-selective sport fisheries, further use and development of 

mark-selective commercial fisheries, and improved monitoring of harvest mortality. 

64 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Recovery Priority Number: 1 

With a high magnitude of threat, high recovery potential, and the presence of conflict, this ESU has been 

assigned a recovery priority number of 1. The magnitude of threat to this ESU has been classified as high 

because of strong risks to its abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity (which largely have 

persisted since its status was first reviewed), and because this ESU faces a strong extinction risk in the 

foreseeable future. This ESU does not meet the criteria for a moderate magnitude of threat (which stipulate 

that the species will not face extinction if recovery is temporarily held off, although there is a continuing 

population decline or threat to its habitat). Delaying recovery for this ESU would likely result in mounting 

extinction risks rather than maintaining the status quo level of risk. The recovery potential for this ESU has 

also been classified as high. Although numerous factors limit the recovery of this ESU, the source of these 

factors and their demographic impacts are relatively well understood and recovery planning is currently 

underway. Although it may be cost-prohibitive to completely address every limiting factor, it is likely that 

integrated reduction of most threats can achieve recovery of this ESU. Finally, as a complex variety of 

activities and management practices continue to impact the conservation and recovery of all Pacific salmon 

ESUs listed under the ESA, NMFS has determined “conflict” exists with regard to this ESU. Taken together, 

these three factors correspond to a recovery priority number of 1. 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 65 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Columbia River Chum ESU (Oncorhynchus keta) 

Date Listed: March 25, 1999; reaffirmed 

June 28, 2005 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: 

A recovery plan for the Washington 

portion of the ESU was completed by 

Washington’s Lower Columbia Fish 

Recovery Board and, after public comment, 

was approved by NMFS in February 2006 

as an interim recovery plan. The Lower 

Columbia River Fish Recovery Board 

updated this plan in 2010, and the Oregon 

Fish and Wildlife Commission adopted a plan for the Oregon portion of the ESU. NMFS will combine these 

plans, along with a plan for the White Salmon basin, and make a draft ESU-level plan, along with the three 

management unit plans, available in the fall of 2011. 

Technical Recovery Team Products: The Willamette/Lower Columbia TRT has identified independent 

populations and completed the population and ESU viability criteria. 

Species Status: The vast majority (14 of 17) chum populations remain extirpated or nearly so. The Grays 

River and Lower Gorge populations showed a sharp increase in 2002, but have since declined back to 

relatively low abundance levels in the range of variation observed over the past several decades. Chinook and 

coho salmon populations in the Lower Columbia and Willamette rivers show similar increases in the early 

2000s followed by declines to typical recent levels, suggesting the increase in chum salmon may be related to 

ocean conditions. Recent data on the mainstem Columbia River component of the Washougal population 

(under the I-205 bridge) are not available, but we suspect they follow a pattern similar to the Grays and 

Lower Gorge populations. 

Limiting Factors and Threats: Threats and impacts to the Columbia River chum ESU include the 

following: 

•	 Degraded estuarine and nearshore marine habitat resulting from cumulative impacts of land use and 

flow management by the Columbia River hydropower system. 

•	 Degraded freshwater habitat, in particular of floodplain connectivity and function, channel structure 

and complexity, stream substrate, and riparian areas and large wood recruitment as a result of 

cumulative impacts of agriculture, forestry, and development. 

•	 Degraded stream flow as a result of hydropower and water supply operations. 

•	 Loss of access and loss of some habitat types as a result of passage barriers such as roads and 

railroads. 

•	 Current or potential predation from hatchery-origin salmonids, including coho. 

Conservation Actions: Major accomplishments for this ESU from 2008 to 2010 include the following: 

•	 Habitat restoration projects: Federal, state, and local governments and private entities carried out several 

habitat restoration projects to increase natural production and add to the ESU’s spatial structure, 

helping to protect against catastrophic loss. 

•	 Improved forest management practices on federal lands and some state and private lands: The Northwest Forest 

Plan Aquatic Conservation Strategy continued in 2008–2010. The strategy is designed to conserve 

and restore salmon and steelhead habitat and to provide an anchor for federal lands’ contribution to 

salmon recovery. In addition, implementation of the Forest Practices HCP, which covers 9.3 million 

66 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

acres of private timber land in Washington and which NMFS approved in 2005, is well underway. 

The plan ensures functional watershed conditions and riparian habitats as state forest practice rules 

are implemented for the recovery of listed salmonids. In addition, a separate HCP for Washington 

State Forest Trust Lands provides assurances for a high level of ecological function on those state 

forest lands. 

•	 Continued and expanded “adult capture/juvenile release” hatchery programs: Adults taken from the wild are 

spawned in a hatchery and the resulting juveniles are released to rear in natural habitat. These 

programs are designed to reseed historical habitat while minimizing the risk of reduced reproductive 

success due to captivity. 

•	 Completed genetic analysis of chum salmon returning to Washington tributaries outside of the two 

primary chum production areas. 

•	 The 2010 FCRPS Supplemental Biological Opinion, which integrates the 2008 RPA and the Adaptive 

Management Implementation Plan, 

 Includes a habitat program to protect and improve tributary and estuary habitat. 

 Supports conservation hatchery programs for reintroduction in the Lower Gorge population. 

 Expands efforts to reduce juvenile and adult losses from predation by birds, other fish, and 

marine mammals. 

•	 A 2008 agreement and NMFS ESA Biological Opinion for managing Columbia River tribal and nontribal fishing protects 13 ESUs and steelhead DPSs in the Columbia Basin, including Columbia River 

chum. The Federal Court, under the authority of U.S. v. Oregon, has adopted the new agreement and 

Biological Opinion. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: Priority recovery actions needed for this ESU include: 

•	 Continued implementation of locally developed plans for the Oregon and Southwest Washington 

portions of this ESU, and of the plan that NMFS developed, with local participation, for the White 

Salmon portion of the ESU. 

•	 Restoration and protection of natural channel processes at additional tributary sites, which includes 

reconnecting lower tributary mainstems with side channels and floodplains. 

•	 Monitoring of historical production areas and active restoration of populations in lower Columbia 

River tributaries where there is currently no known spawning activity. 

•	 Restoration of shallow-water rearing habitat in the lower Columbia River and monitoring and 

evaluation to identify additional restoration sites. 

•	 Avoidance of continued degradation and loss of chum spawning and rearing habitat through land 

and water practices that promote conservation. 

•	 Increased attention to the potential predation of chum by hatchery coho and other salmonids. 

Recovery Priority Number: 1 

With a high magnitude of threat, high recovery potential, and the presence of conflict, this ESU has been 

assigned a recovery priority number of 1. The magnitude of threat to this ESU has been classified as high 

because of strong risks to its abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity (which largely have 

remained the same since its status was first reviewed), and the fact that this ESU faces a strong extinction risk 

in the foreseeable future. This ESU does not meet the criteria for a moderate magnitude of threat (which 

stipulate that the species will not face extinction if recovery is temporarily held off, although there is a 

continuing population decline or threat to its habitat). Delaying recovery for this ESU would likely result in 

mounting extinction risks rather than maintaining the status quo level of risk. The recovery potential for this 

ESU has also been classified as high. Although numerous factors limit the recovery of this ESU, the source of 

these factors and their demographic impacts are relatively well understood and recovery planning is currently 

underway. Although it may be cost-prohibitive to completely address every limiting factor, it is likely that 

integrated reduction of most threats can achieve recovery of this ESU. Finally, as a complex variety of 

activities and management practices continue to impact the conservation and recovery of all Pacific salmon 

ESUs listed under the ESA, NMFS has determined “conflict” exists with regard to this ESU. Taken together, 

these three factors correspond to a recovery priority number of 1. 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 67 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Upper Willamette River Steelhead DPS (Oncorhynchus mykiss) 

Date Listed: March 25, 1999; reclassified as a DPS January 5, 2006 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: Notice that the proposed recovery plan for this DPS was available for public 

comment was published in the Federal Register on October 22, 2010 (75 FR 65299). 

Technical Recovery Team Products: The Willamette/Lower Columbia TRT has identified independent 

populations and completed the population and DPS viability criteria. 

Species Status: Since the last status update, Upper Willamette steelhead initially increased in abundance but 

subsequently declined, and current abundance is at the levels observed in the mid-1990s when the DPS was 

first listed. The DPS appears to be at lower risk than the Upper Willamette Chinook ESU, but continues to 

demonstrate the overall low abundance pattern that was of concern during the last status review. The 

elimination of winter-run hatchery release in the basin reduces hatchery threats, but non-native summer 

steelhead hatchery releases are still a concern. Human population growth within the Willamette Basin 

constitutes a significant risk factor for these populations. Overall, the new information considered does not 

indicate a change in the biological risk category since the time of the last status review. 

Limiting Factors and Threats: Threats and impacts to the Upper Willamette River steelhead DPS include 

the following: 

•	 Degraded freshwater habitat: floodplain connectivity and function, channel structure and complexity, 

riparian areas and large wood recruitment, and stream flow have been degraded as a result of 

cumulative impacts of agriculture, forestry, and development. 

•	 Degraded water quality and altered temperature as a result of both tributary dams and the cumulative 

impacts of agriculture, forestry, and urban development. 

•	 Reduced access to spawning and rearing habitats mainly as a result of artificial barriers in spawning 

tributaries. 

•	 Hatchery-related effects: impacts from the non-native summer steelhead hatchery program. 

Conservation Actions: Major accomplishments from 2008 to 2010 for this DPS include the following: 

•	 ESA section 7 consultation completed between NMFS and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. 

Bureau of Reclamation, and Bonneville Power Administration on the continued operation of 13 

multipurpose dams in the Willamette Basin. Beneficial actions to the ESU include: enhanced 

upstream fish passage facilities (the dams block access some historical spawning habitat for this 

DPS), retrofitting of dams to provide more normative temperature regimes below the projects that 

affect steelhead spawning and rearing, enhanced downstream passage of juvenile steelhead at certain 

projects, and enhanced flow management to ensure safe migration, spawning, incubation, and rearing 

of steelhead. 

•	 ESA consultation at hydroelectric projects as part of FERC re-licensing, new licenses, and settlement 

agreements. Benefits to salmonids include improved streamflows, habitat restoration, gravel 

augmentation below dams for spawning, and improved upstream and downstream fish passage at 

dams. Improvements were made at Willamette Falls Dam, Albany/Lebanon Dam, and Upper 

Bennett Dam. 

•	 As a result of funding from NMFS’ Open River Initiative, the Brownsville Dam on the Calapooia 

River was removed 

•	 Habitat restoration projects: Hundreds of projects during 2008–2010 have improved riparian areas, fish 

passage at culvert barriers, and stream and floodplain function. ESA section 7 programmatic 

consultation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was completed in 2008 to expedite permitting 

of these types of salmonid recovery actions. 

68 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

•	 Improved forest management practices on federal lands: The Northwest Forest Plan Aquatic Conservation 

Strategy continued in 2008–2010. The strategy is designed to conserve and restore salmon and 

steelhead habitat, and to provide an anchor for federal lands’ contribution to salmon recovery. The 

U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management worked with NMFS in 2006 to develop a 

programmatic approach to designing and approving timber sales that would result in minimal 

impacts to salmonids. 

•	 Hatchery reforms: Hatchery programs have been modified to reduce the effects of non-native summer 

steelhead hatchery fish on native, naturally produced winter steelhead populations. 

•	 Harvest reforms: Catch-and-release fisheries have substantially reduced harvest impacts to winter 

steelhead. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: Priority recovery actions needed for this DPS include the following: 

•	 Congressional authorization and funding for the new recovery actions described in the section 7 

biological opinion on the 13 federal dams in the Willamette Basin—an ESA consultation between 

NMFS and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and Bonneville Power 

Administration. 

•	 Improved land use practices to protect existing high-quality habitat and prevent further degradation, 

along with continued, targeted restoration of other priority locations and issues identified in the draft 

recovery plan. Protection and restoration are particularly important in lowland floodplain stream 

reaches where channel complexity and floodplain connectivity are severely degraded. 

•	 Work with local stakeholders in the Molalla River Subbasin to secure enhanced riparian and upland 

management protections in the priority areas for salmonid spawning and rearing. 

•	 Reduce point and non-point sources of thermal and toxic pollution and continued clean-up efforts 

for contaminated stream areas where juvenile steelhead live. 

•	 Reduce hatchery-related effects from the non-native summer steelhead hatchery program. 

Recovery Priority Number: 1 

With a high magnitude of threat, high recovery potential, and the presence of conflict, this DPS has been 

assigned a recovery priority number of 1. The magnitude of threat to this DPS has been classified as high 

because of strong risks to its abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity (which largely have 

persisted since its status was first reviewed), and because this DPS faces a strong extinction risk in the 

foreseeable future. This DPS does not meet the criteria for a moderate magnitude of threat (which stipulate 

that the species will not face extinction if recovery is temporarily held off, although there is a continuing 

population decline or threat to its habitat). Delaying recovery for this DPS would likely result in mounting 

extinction risks rather than maintaining the status quo level of risk. The recovery potential for this DPS has 

also been classified as high. Although numerous factors limit the recovery of this DPS, the source of these 

factors and their demographic impacts are relatively well understood and recovery planning is currently 

underway. Although it may be cost-prohibitive to completely address every limiting factor, it is likely that 

integrated reduction of most threats can achieve recovery of this DPS. Finally, as a complex variety of 

activities and management practices continue to impact the conservation and recovery of all Pacific salmon 

and steelhead ESUs and DPSs listed under the ESA, NMFS has determined “conflict” exists with regard to 

this DPS. Taken together, these three factors correspond to a recovery priority number of 1. 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 69 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Upper Columbia River Spring-Run Chinook ESU 

(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) 

Date Listed: March 24, 1999; reaffirmed on 

June 28, 2005 

Legal Status: Endangered 

Recovery Plan Status: A proposed ESA 

recovery plan was completed and approved 

by both the Upper Columbia Salmon 

Recovery Board and NMFS in July 2006. A 

Federal Register Notice of Availability for the 

proposed recovery plan was released on 

September 29, 2006 (71 FR 57472, NMFS 

2006c) for a 60-day review period, and 

extended for an additional 60 days on 

November 28, 2006. The final ESA recovery 

plan for this ESU was adopted by NMFS on October 9, 2007. 

Technical Recovery Team Products: The Interior Columbia TRT identified three independent 

populations (Wenatchee, Entiat, and Methow) in this ESU and recommended population and ESU viability 

criteria. 

Species Status: The Upper Columbia Spring Chinook salmon ESU is not currently meeting the viability 

criteria (adapted from the Interior Columbia TRT) in the Upper Columbia Recovery Plan. Although increases 

in natural-origin abundance relative to the extremely low spawning levels observed in the mid‐1990s are 

encouraging, average productivity levels remain extremely low. Large-scale directed supplementation 

programs are underway in two of the three extant populations in the ESU. These programs are intended to 

mitigate short‐term demographic risks while actions to improve natural productivity and capacity are 

implemented. While these programs may provide short‐term demographic benefits, there are significant 

uncertainties regarding the long‐term risks of relying on high levels of hatchery influence to maintain natural 

populations. The Upper Columbia Recovery Plan includes a number of strategies for improving survival in 

tributary habitats and the mainstem migration corridor along with complementary harvest management and 

hatchery management regimes. The time frames for implementing actions and for those actions to result in 

improved survivals vary across strategies. Improved passage survivals relative to conditions prevalent at the 

time of listing are expected to be relatively immediate. Given the anticipated action implementation schedule 

and assumptions regarding time lags for realizing target habitat improvements incorporated into the Upper 

Columbia Recovery Plan, improvements in survival due to changes in habitat conditions are expected accrue 

over a 10- to 50-year period. 

Limiting Factors and Threats: Limiting factors and threats to the Upper Columbia River Spring-Run 

Chinook ESU include the following: 

•	 Mainstem Columbia River Hydropower–related adverse effects. 

•	 Degraded freshwater habitat: Floodplain connectivity and function, channel structure and complexity, 

riparian areas and large woody debris recruitment, stream flow, and water quality have been degraded 

as a result of cumulative impacts of agriculture, forestry, and development. 

•	 Hatchery related effects. 

•	 Harvest in Columbia River fisheries. 

70 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Conservation Actions: Major accomplishments from 2008 to 2010 for this ESU include the following: 

•	 Conducted and facilitated local habitat restoration and protection projects: Conservation easements and land 

purchases of riparian areas along rivers and streams have been used to protect critical spawning and 

rearing areas; the Natural Resources Conservation Service Conservation Reserve and Enhancement 

Program protects riparian areas on farms and ranches. 

•	 Equipped irrigation diversion withdrawals with screens, leading to greater productivity and
 

abundance.
 

•	 Improved forest management practices on non-federal lands: The Northwest Forest Plan Aquatic Conservation 

Strategy is designed to conserve and restore salmon and steelhead habitat, and provides an anchor 

for federal lands’ contribution to salmon recovery. In addition, implementation of the Forest 

Practices HCP, which covers 9.3 million acres of private timber land in Washington and which 

NMFS approved in 2005, is well underway. The plan ensures functional watershed conditions and 

riparian habitats as state forest practice rules are implemented for the recovery of listed salmonids. 

•	 Habitat actions in the tributaries have increased protection of some areas of intact habitat and 

improved quality of degraded habitats under several funding sources, including the two HCPs with 

local public utility districts and a Settlement Agreement with another public utility district. In 

particular, the Bureau of Reclamation has assisted in implementing several significant passage 

improvement projects in the Methow and Wenatchee basins. 

•	 A new ESA section 7 biological opinion and new U.S. v. Oregon harvest agreement protect these fish 

during their migration in the lower Columbia River. 

•	 A new ESA section 7 consultation protects these fish from over-harvest in the upper Columbia 

River. Fisheries were authorized in the upper Columbia under an ESA section 10 permit for the 

incidental harvest of listed Upper Columbia spring Chinook at levels that would not jeopardize their 

survival. 

•	 The 2010 FCRPS Supplemental Biological Opinion, which integrates the 2008 RPA and the Adaptive 

Management Implementation Plan, 

 Sets standards for survival of juvenile and adult salmon and steelhead migrating through the 

dams. 

 Includes a habitat program to protect and improve tributary and estuary habitat. 

 Provides new and expanded hatchery facilities and safety net conservation programs and 

supports hatchery reforms. 

 Expands efforts to reduce juvenile and adult losses from predation by birds, other fish, and 

marine mammals. 

•	 A 2008 agreement and NMFS ESA Biological Opinion for managing Columbia River tribal and nontribal fishing protects these fish in the mainstem and lower Columbia River basin. The new 

agreement and Biological Opinion have been adopted by the Federal Court (under the authority of 

U.S. v. Oregon) and parties to the agreement include the states of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho; the 

Umatilla, Yakama, Nez Perce, and Warm Springs tribes; the FWS; and NMFS. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: Priority recovery actions needed for this ESU include: 

•	 Protect high-quality habitat—particularly productive, sensitive floodplain habitats—from residential 

development. 

•	 Improve fish passage at barriers along the migration corridor. 

•	 Improve irrigation efficiencies to improve instream flows. 

•	 Restore habitat and increase habitat complexity. 

Recovery Priority Number: 1 

With a high magnitude of threat, high recovery potential, and the presence of conflict, this ESU has been 

assigned a recovery priority number of 1. The magnitude of threat to this ESU has been classified as high 

because of strong risks to its abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity (which largely have 

persisted since its status was first reviewed), and because this ESU faces a strong extinction risk in the 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 71 
 

 

 

 

 

 

foreseeable future. This ESU does not meet the criteria for a moderate magnitude of threat (which stipulate 

that the species will not face extinction if recovery is temporarily held off, although there is a continuing 

population decline or threat to its habitat). Delaying recovery for this ESU would likely result in mounting 

extinction risks rather than maintaining the status quo level of risk. The recovery potential for this ESU has 

also been classified as high. Although numerous factors limit the recovery of this ESU, the source of these 

factors and their demographic impacts are relatively well understood and recovery planning is currently 

underway. Although it may be cost-prohibitive to completely address every limiting factor, it is likely that 

integrated reduction of most threats can achieve recovery of this ESU. Finally, as a complex variety of 

activities and management practices continue to impact the conservation and recovery of all Pacific salmon 

ESUs listed under the ESA, NMFS has determined “conflict” exists with regard to this ESU. Taken together, 

these three factors correspond to a recovery priority number of 1. 

72 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Snake River Spring/Summer-Run Chinook ESU (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) 

Date Listed: April 22, 1992; reaffirmed June 

28, 2005 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: A draft recovery plan 

for this ESU was developed in March 1995, but 

was not adopted. A recovery plan has not been 

completed for this ESU, but recovery planning 

is underway. 

Technical Recovery Team Products: The 

Interior Columbia TRT identified major 

population groups each with several 

independent populations and completed the 

ESU and population-level viability criteria. 

Species Status: Population-level status remains at high risk across all major population groups within the 

ESU. Although recent natural spawning abundance estimates have increased, all populations remain below 

minimum natural origin abundance thresholds. Relatively low natural production rates and spawning levels 

below minimum abundance thresholds remain a major concern across the ESU. The ability of populations to 

be self‐sustaining through normal periods of relatively low ocean survival remains uncertain. Factors cited in 

the 2005 status review (Good et al. 2005) remain as concerns or key uncertainties. 

Limiting Factors and Threats: Limiting factors and threats to the Snake River Spring/Summer-Run 

Chinook ESU include the following: 

•	 Degraded freshwater habitat: Floodplain connectivity and function, channel structure and complexity, 

riparian areas and large wood supply, stream substrate, elevated water temperature, stream flow, and 

water quality have been degraded as a result of cumulative impacts of agriculture, forestry, and 

development. 

•	 Mainstem Columbia River hydropower impacts. 

•	 Harvest-related effects. 

•	 Predation. 

Conservation Actions: Major accomplishments from 2008 to 2010 for this ESU include the following: 

•	 The 2010 FCRPS Supplemental Biological Opinion, which integrates the 2008 RPA and the Adaptive 

Management Implementation Plan, 

 Sets standards for survival of juvenile and adult salmon and steelhead migrating through the 

dams. 

 Includes a habitat program to protect and improve tributary and estuary habitat. 

 Provides new and expanded hatchery facilities and safety net conservation programs and 

supports hatchery reforms. 

 Expands efforts to reduce juvenile and adult losses from predation by birds, other fish, and 

marine mammals. 

•	 A 2008 agreement and NMFS ESA Biological Opinion for managing Columbia River tribal and nontribal fishing protects 12 ESUs and steelhead DPSs in the Columbia Basin. The new agreement and 

Biological Opinion have been adopted by the Federal Court (under the authority of U.S. v. Oregon) 

and parties to the agreement include the states of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho; the Umatilla, 

Yakama, Nez Perce, and Warm Springs tribes; the FWS; and NMFS. 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 73 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

•	 Improved federal land management practices: Land management plans of the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau 

of Land Management are being designed to protect and restore habitat. 

•	 Improved water-quality permitting procedures, by working with EPA to develop procedures that 

enhance salmon considerations. 

•	 Conducted local habitat restoration and restoration of stream flows: This includes efforts by the Northwest 

Power Planning Council Fish and Wildlife Program, PCSRF, Natural Resources Conservation 

Service, and NOAA Restoration Center. 

•	 Worked to improve water quantity via the Snake River basin adjudication settlement of water claims 

between the Nez Pierce Tribe and the State of Idaho, including a program to improve instream flows 

in the Lemhi River. 

•	 Equipped hundreds of irrigation diversions with fish screens. 

•	 Reduced overall harvest rates. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: Priority recovery actions needed for this ESU include: 

•	 Continue the structural and operational modifications to hydropower dams to improve salmon 

survival in the migration corridor. 

•	 Protect high-quality habitats. 

•	 Conduct habitat restoration. 

•	 Increase instream flows. 

•	 Implement and continue abundance-based management to reduce harvest impacts during low-return 

years when protections are most needed. 

•	 Control predation. 

•	 Complete and implement Fishery Management and Evaluation Plans and Tribal Resource
 

Management Plans for tributary fisheries.
 

•	 Implement harvest agreements from U.S. v. Oregon. 

•	 Complete and implement Hatchery and Genetic Management Plans and Tribal Resource
 

Management Plans for tributary hatcheries.
 

Recovery Priority Number: 1 

With a high magnitude of threat, high recovery potential, and the presence of conflict, this ESU has been 

assigned a recovery priority number of 1. The magnitude of threat to this ESU has been classified as high 

because of strong risks to its abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity (which largely have 

persisted since its status was first reviewed), and because this ESU faces a strong extinction risk in the 

foreseeable future. This ESU does not meet the criteria for a moderate magnitude of threat (which stipulate 

that the species will not face extinction if recovery is temporarily held off, although there is a continuing 

population decline or threat to its habitat). Delaying recovery for this ESU would likely result in mounting 

extinction risks rather than maintaining the status quo level of risk. The recovery potential for this ESU has 

also been classified as high. Although numerous factors limit the recovery of this ESU, the source of these 

factors and their demographic impacts are relatively well understood and recovery planning is currently 

underway. Although it may be cost-prohibitive to completely address every limiting factor, it is likely the 

integrated reduction of most threats can achieve recovery of this ESU. Finally, as a complex variety of 

activities and management practices continue to impact the conservation and recovery of all Pacific salmon 

ESUs listed under the ESA, NMFS has determined “conflict” exists with regard to this ESU. Taken together, 

these three factors correspond to a recovery priority number of 1. 

74 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Snake River Fall-Run Chinook ESU (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) 

Date Listed: April 22, 1992; reaffirmed June 

28, 2005 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: A draft recovery plan 

for this ESU was developed in March of 

1995, but was not adopted. No recovery plan 

has been completed for this ESU, but 

recovery planning is underway. 

Technical Recovery Team Products: The 

Interior Columbia TRT identified 

independent populations and completed the 

population and ESU viability criteria. 

Species Status: Abundance and productivity estimates for the single remaining population of Snake River 

Fall Chinook salmon have improved substantially relative to the time of listing. However, the current 

combined estimates of abundance and productivity population still result in a moderate risk of extinction of 

between 5 and 25 percent in 100 years. Only one population of Snake River Fall Chinook exists from a 

historical ESU that also included large mainstem populations upstream of the current location of the Hells 

Canyon Dam complex. The recent increases in natural origin abundance are encouraging. However, hatchery 

origin spawner proportions have increased dramatically in recent years—on average, 78 percent of the 

estimated adult spawners have been of hatchery origin over the most recent brood cycle. 

Limiting Factors and Threats: Limiting factors and threats to the Snake River Fall-Run Chinook ESU 

include the following: 

•	 Degraded habitat such as fish passage. 

•	 Degraded freshwater habitat: Floodplain connectivity and function, and channel structure and complexity 

have been degraded as a result of cumulative impacts of agriculture, forestry, and development. 

•	 Harvest-related effects. 

•	 Mainstem Columbia River hydropower impacts. 

•	 Hatchery-related effects. 

•	 Degraded estuarine and nearshore habitat. 

Conservation Actions: Major accomplishments from 2008 to 2010 for this ESU include the following: 

•	 The 2010 FCRPS Supplemental Biological Opinion, which integrates the 2008 RPA and the Adaptive 

Management Implementation Plan, 

 Sets standards for survival of juvenile and adult salmon and steelhead migrating through the 

dams. 

 Includes a habitat program to protect and improve tributary and estuary habitat. 

 Provides new and expanded hatchery facilities and safety net conservation programs, and 

supports hatchery reforms. 

 Expands efforts to reduce juvenile and adult losses from predation by birds, other fish, and 

marine mammals. 

•	 A 2008 agreement and NMFS ESA Biological Opinion for managing Columbia River tribal and nontribal fishing protects 12 ESUs and steelhead DPSs in the Columbia Basin. The new agreement and 

Biological Opinion have been adopted by the Federal Court (under the authority of U.S. v. Oregon) 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 75 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and parties to the agreement include the states of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho; the Umatilla, 

Yakama, Nez Perce, and Warm Springs tribes; the FWS; and NMFS. 

•	 Negotiated a new Chinook harvest agreement as part of the Pacific Salmon Treaty re-negotiations. 

The U.S. achieved significant harvest reductions in west coast Canadian fisheries that will 

complement ongoing U.S. harvest measures to benefit Snake River fall Chinook salmon. 

•	 Continued improvements in federal land management practices: Land management plans of the U.S. Forest 

Service and Bureau of Land Management are being designed to protect and restore habitat. 

•	 Continued improvements in water quality, working with the Environmental Protection Agency and 

the States. 

•	 Conducted local habitat restoration and restoration of stream flows: This work includes efforts by the
 

Northwest Power Planning Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program, PCSRF, Natural Resources
 

Conservation Service, and the NOAA Restoration Center.
 

•	 Worked to improve water quantity via the Snake River basin adjudication settlement of water claims 

between the Nez Perce Tribe and the State of Idaho, including a program to improve instream flows 

in the Lemhi River—this was approved by Congress in late 2004 and by the State of Idaho and the 

Nez Perce Tribe in 2005. 

•	 Continued programs to improve priority irrigation diversions by adding fish screens. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: Priority recovery actions needed for this ESU include the following: 

•	 Continue the structural and operational modifications to hydropower dams to improve salmon 

survival in the migration corridor. 

•	 Protect high-quality habitats. 

•	 Conduct habitat restoration, as 80 percent of historical habitat for this ESU has been lost. 

•	 Manage river temperatures to benefit this ESU. 

•	 Reduce hatchery fish on the spawning grounds. 

Recovery Priority Number: 1 

With a high magnitude of threat, high recovery potential, and the presence of conflict, this ESU has been 

assigned a recovery priority number of 1. The magnitude of threat to this ESU has been classified as high 

because of strong risks to its abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity (which largely have 

persisted since its status was first reviewed), and because this ESU faces a strong extinction risk in the 

foreseeable future. This ESU does not meet the criteria for a moderate magnitude of threat (which stipulate 

that the species will not face extinction if recovery is temporarily held off, although there is a continuing 

population decline or threat to its habitat). Delaying recovery for this ESU would likely result in mounting 

extinction risks rather than maintaining the status quo level of risk. The recovery potential for this ESU has 

also been classified as high. Although numerous factors limit the recovery of this ESU, the source of these 

factors and their demographic impacts are relatively well understood and recovery planning is currently under 

way. Although it may be cost-prohibitive to completely address every limiting factor, it is likely that integrated 

reduction of most threats can achieve recovery of this ESU. Finally, as a complex variety of activities and 

management practices continue to impact the conservation and recovery of all Pacific salmon ESUs listed 

under the ESA, NMFS has determined “conflict” exists with regard to this ESU. Taken together, these three 

factors correspond to a recovery priority number of 1. 

76 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Upper Columbia River Steelhead DPS (Oncorhynchus mykiss) 

Date Listed: Listed as endangered on August 18, 1997, and on August 24, 2009, NMFS announced a 

change in status for the Upper Columbia River steelhead (74 FR42605). In January 2006, we reclassified the 

Upper Columbia River steelhead from endangered to threatened based on an updated review that noted 

increasing steelhead abundance, more widespread spawning, and artificial propagation programs aimed at 

improving local adaptation and diversity within the range of this DPS (71 FR 834; January 5, 2006 ). In April 

2006, our decision to downlist this DPS from endangered to threatened was challenged in the U.S. District 

Court for the Western District of Washington. On June 13, 2007, the district court ruled that we had erred in 

downlisting Upper Columbia River steelhead, concluding that we had not given appropriate consideration to 

self-sustaining natural populations (Trout Unlimited v. Lohn, C06-0483-JCC, 2007). The result of this ruling was 

to return Upper Columbia River steelhead to endangered status. We appealed that decision to the U.S. Court 

of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and, on March 16, 2009, that court ruled that our downlisting did not violate 

the ESA. Accordingly, on June 18, 2009, the district court revised its ruling, effectively re-instating Upper 

Columbia River steelhead to threatened status under the ESA. 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: A proposed ESA recovery plan was completed and approved by both the Upper 

Columbia Salmon Recovery Board and NMFS in July 2006. NMFS published a Federal Register Notice of 

Availability for a proposed recovery plan on September 29, 2006 (71 FR 57472, NMFS 2006c), for a 60-day 

review period, and extended for an additional 60 days on November 28, 2006. The final ESA recovery plan 

for this DPS was adopted by NMFS on October 7, 2007. 

Technical Recovery Team Products: The Interior Columbia TRT identified independent populations and 

recommended population and DPS viability criteria. 

Species Status: Upper Columbia steelhead populations have increased in natural-origin abundance in recent 

years, but productivity levels remain low. The proportions of hatchery-origin returns in natural spawning 

areas remain extremely high across the DPS, especially in the Methow and Okanogan River populations. The 

modest improvements in natural returns in recent years are probably primarily the result of several years of 

relatively good natural survival in the ocean and tributary habitats. Tributary habitat actions called for in the 

Upper Columbia Recovery Plan are anticipated to be implemented over the next 25 years and the benefits of 

some of those actions will require some time to be realized. Overall, the new information considered does not 

indicate a change in the biological risk category since the time of the last status review. 

Limiting Factors and Threats: The limiting factors and threats for this DPS include: 

•	 Mainstem Columbia River Hydropower–related adverse effects. 

•	 Degraded freshwater habitat: floodplain connectivity and function, channel structure and complexity, 

riparian areas and large woody debris recruitment, stream flow, and water quality have been degraded 

as a result of cumulative impacts of agriculture, forestry, and development. 

•	 Hatchery-related effects. 

•	 Harvest-related effects. 

Conservation Actions: Major accomplishments from 2008 to 2010 for this DPS include the following: 

•	 Worked to improve stream flows through water conservation, leases, and purchases in overappropriated streams (where available water is insufficient to meet existing water rights).
 

•	 Conducted complex negotiations each season through the U.S. v. Oregon forum to direct Columbia 

River harvest rates and fishery structure for the protection of listed steelhead. 

•	 Equipped irrigation diversion withdrawals with screens, leading to greater productivity and
 

abundance.
 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 77 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

•	 Conducted and facilitated local habitat restoration projects. Conservation easements and land 

purchases of riparian areas along rivers and streams were used to protect critical spawning and 

rearing areas. The Farm Service Agency’s Conservation Reserve and Enhancement Program protects 

riparian areas on farms and ranches. 

•	 Hatchery program operational changes were made to benefit listed steelhead by reducing risks of 

hatchery-reared steelhead. 

•	 Habitat actions protected some areas of intact habitat and improved areas of degraded habitat in the 

tributaries of the Columbia River and continued improvements in mainstem juvenile and adult 

passage under three HCPs with two local public utility districts and a Settlement Agreement with 

another public utility district. In particular, the Bureau of Reclamation has assisted in implementing 

several significant passage improvement projects in the Methow and Wenatchee basins. 

•	 The 2010 FCRPS Supplemental Biological Opinion, which integrates the 2008 RPA and the Adaptive 

Management Implementation Plan, 

 Sets standards for survival of juvenile and adult salmon and steelhead migrating through the 

dams. 

 Includes a habitat program to protect and improve tributary and estuary habitat. 

 Provides new and expanded hatchery facilities and safety net conservation programs and 

supports hatchery reforms. 

 Expands efforts to reduce juvenile and adult losses from predation by birds, other fish, and 

marine mammals. 

•	 A 2008 agreement and NMFS ESA Biological Opinion for managing Columbia River tribal and nontribal fishing protects 12 ESUs and steelhead DPSs in the Columbia Basin. The new agreement and 

Biological Opinion have been adopted by the Federal Court (under the authority of U.S. v. Oregon) 

and parties to the agreement include the states of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho; the Umatilla, 

Yakama, Nez Perce, and Warm Springs tribes; the FWS; and NMFS. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: Priority recovery actions needed for this DPS include the following: 

•	 Protect high-quality habitat—particularly productive, sensitive floodplain habitats—from residential 

development. 

•	 Improve fish passage at barriers along the migration corridor. 

•	 Improve instream flows in priority tributaries. 

•	 Restore habitat and increase habitat complexity. 

•	 Update, complete, and implement Hatchery and Genetic Management Plans. 

Recovery Priority Number: 1 

With a high magnitude of threat, high recovery potential, and the presence of conflict, this DPS has been 

assigned a recovery priority number of 1. The magnitude of threat to this DPS has been classified as high 

because of strong risks to its abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity (which largely have 

persisted since its status was first reviewed), and because this DPS faces a strong extinction risk in the 

foreseeable future. This DPS does not meet the criteria for a moderate magnitude of threat (which stipulate 

that the species will not face extinction if recovery is temporarily held off, although there is a continuing 

population decline or threat to its habitat). Delaying recovery for this DPS would likely result in mounting 

extinction risks rather than maintaining the status quo level of risk. The recovery potential for this DPS has 

also been classified as high. Although numerous factors limit the recovery of this DPS, the source of these 

factors and their demographic impacts are relatively well understood and recovery planning is currently 

underway. Although it may be cost-prohibitive to completely address every limiting factor, it is likely that 

integrated reduction of most threats can achieve recovery of this DPS. Finally, as a complex variety of 

activities and management practices continue to impact the conservation and recovery of all Pacific salmon 

ESU/DPSs listed under the ESA, NMFS has determined “conflict” exists with regard to this DPS. Taken 

together, these three factors correspond to a recovery priority number of 1. 

78 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Middle Columbia River Steelhead DPS (Oncorhynchus mykiss) 

Date Listed: March 25, 1999; reclassified as a DPS 

January 5, 2006 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: A final recovery plan for 

MCR steelhead was published on September 30, 

2009 (74 FR 50165). 

Technical Recovery Team Products: The 

Interior Columbia TRT identified independent 

populations and recommended population and DPS 

viability criteria. 

Species Status: There have been improvements in 

the viability ratings for some of the component 

populations, but the Mid‐Columbia steelhead DPS is not currently meeting the viability criteria (adopted from 

the Interior Columbia TRT) in the Mid‐Columbia Steelhead Recovery Plan. In addition, several of the factors 

cited by the 2005 BRT (Good et al. 2005) remain as concerns or key uncertainties. Natural-origin spawning 

estimates are highly variable relative to minimum abundance thresholds across the populations in the DPS. 

Updated information indicates that stray levels into at least the Lower John Day River population are also 

high. Returns to the Yakima River basin and to the Umatilla and Walla Walla Rivers have been higher over 

the most recent brood cycle, while natural-origin returns to the John Day River have decreased. Out-of-basin 

hatchery stray proportions, although reduced, remain very high in the Deschutes River basin. Overall the new 

information considered does not indicate a change in the biological risk category since the time of the last 

status review. 

Limiting Factors and Threats: The limiting factors and threats for this DPS include: 

•	 Degraded freshwater habitat: Floodplain connectivity and function, channel structure and complexity, 

riparian areas, fish passage, stream substrate, stream flow, and water quality have been degraded as a 

result of cumulative impacts of agriculture, forestry, tributary hydro system activities, and 

development. 

•	 Mainstem Columbia River Hydropower–related impacts. 

•	 Hatchery-related effects. 

•	 Harvest-related effects. 

Conservation Actions: Major accomplishments from 2008 to 2010 for this DPS include the following: 

•	 Accomplished hydropower operational changes. 

•	 Conducted local habitat restoration projects, including reconnecting streams and side channels (e.g., 

Meacham and Iskuulpa Creeks in the Umatilla basin and Wilson Creek and Manastash Creek in the 

Yakima River). Conservation easements and land purchases of riparian areas along rivers and streams 

were used to protect critical spawning and rearing areas. The Farm Service Agency’s Conservation 

Reserve and Enhancement Program has been used to establish riparian areas on farms and ranches in 

some watersheds (notably the Walla Walla River Basin). 

•	 Opened 25+ miles of habitat with completion of passage project on Birch Creek (tributary to the 

Umatilla River). 

•	 Water was saved and adult and juvenile passage provided with completion of Lower Touchet River 

Irrigation Diversion Project. 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 79 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

•	 Conducted complex negotiations each season through the U.S. v. Oregon forum to direct Columbia 

River harvest rates and fishery structure for the protection of listed steelhead. 

•	 Equipped dozens of irrigation diversion withdrawals with screens, leading to greater productivity and 

abundance. 

•	 Conducted water conservation projects in over-appropriated streams (where available water is 

insufficient to meet existing water rights) to transfer water rights to a state trust water program. 

•	 Continued to operate the Warm Springs National Fish Hatchery weir to remove hatchery steelhead 

creating natural-origin steelhead refuge in upper Warms Springs River. 

•	 Completed the juvenile fish passage facility at the Round Butte Complex dams on the Deschutes 

River and implemented a plan to reintroduce anadromous salmon and steelhead fry into historical 

habitat above the dams. 

•	 The 2010 FCRPS Supplemental Biological Opinion, which integrates the 2008 RPA and the Adaptive 

Management Implementation Plan, 

 Sets standards for survival of juvenile and adult salmon and steelhead migrating through the 

dams. 

 Includes a habitat program to protect and improve tributary and estuary habitat. 

 Provides new and expanded hatchery facilities and safety net conservation programs and 

supports hatchery reforms. 

 Expands efforts to reduce juvenile and adult losses from predation by birds, other fish, and 

marine mammals. 

•	 A 2008 agreement and NMFS ESA Biological Opinion for managing Columbia River tribal and nontribal fishing protects 12 ESUs and steelhead DPSs in the Columbia Basin. The new agreement and 

Biological Opinion have been adopted by the Federal Court (under the authority of U.S. v. Oregon) 

and parties to the agreement include the states of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho; the Umatilla, 

Yakama, Nez Perce, and Warm Springs tribes; the FWS; and NMFS. 

•	 Completed and implemented Hatchery and Genetic Management Plans and Tribal Resource
 

Management Plans for tributary hatcheries.
 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: Priority recovery actions needed for this DPS include the following: 

•	 Protect high-quality habitat, particularly productive, sensitive floodplain habitats. 

•	 Improve fish passage at barriers along the migration corridor. 

•	 Increase instream flows in priority streams and achieve more normative flow regimes in watersheds 

regulated by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 

•	 Restore habitat and increase habitat complexity. 

•	 Comprehensively mark all hatchery-produced steelhead to identify and remove hatchery strays, and 

to determine source of the out-of-basin strays. 

•	 Continue implementation of Phase III of Umatilla Water Rights Project. 

•	 Continue Yakima Basin steelhead kelt reconditioning program and initiate similar programs in other 

middle Columbia basins. 

•	 Continue to develop locally adapted populations for steelhead mitigation hatchery programs and 

provide facility improvements (e.g., Dayton Acclimation Pond Trap) to collect broodstock and 

manage returning adult steelhead. 

•	 Implement HSRG recommendations, including measures to reduce straying of Snake River basin 

steelhead into Middle Columbia tributaries. 

Recovery Priority Number: 1 

With a high magnitude of threat, high recovery potential, and the presence of conflict, this DPS has been 

assigned a recovery priority number of 1. The magnitude of threat to this DPS has been classified as high 

because of strong risks to its abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity (which largely have 

persisted since its status was first reviewed), and because this DPS faces a strong extinction risk in the 

foreseeable future. This DPS does not meet the criteria for a moderate magnitude of threat (which stipulate 

80 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

that the species will not face extinction if recovery is temporarily held off, although there is a continuing 

population decline or threat to its habitat). Delaying recovery for this DPS would likely result in mounting 

extinction risks rather than maintaining the status quo level of risk. The recovery potential for this DPS has 

also been classified as high. Although numerous factors limit the recovery of this DPS, the source of these 

factors and their demographic impacts are relatively well understood and recovery implementation is currently 

underway. Although it may be cost-prohibitive to completely address every limiting factor, it is likely that 

integrated reduction of most threats can achieve recovery of this DPS. Finally, as a complex variety of 

activities and management practices continue to impact the conservation and recovery of all Pacific salmon 

ESU/DPSs listed under the ESA, NMFS has determined “conflict” exists with regard to this DPS. Taken 

together, these three factors correspond to a recovery priority number of 1. 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 81 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Snake River Basin Steelhead DPS (Oncorhynchus mykiss) 

Date Listed: August 18, 1997; reclassified as a DPS 

January 5, 2006 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: A draft plan was developed in 

March 1995, but was not adopted. No recovery plan has 

been completed, but recovery planning is underway. 

Technical Recovery Team Products: The Interior 

Columbia TRT identified independent populations and 

completed the DPS and population-level viability 

criteria and population-level recovery goals. 

Species Status: The level of natural production in the two populations with full data series and the Asotin 

Creek index reaches is encouraging, but the status of most populations in this DPS remains highly uncertain. 

Population‐level natural-origin abundance and productivity inferred from aggregate data and juvenile indices 

indicate that many populations are likely below the minimum combinations defined by the Interior Columbia 

TRT viability criteria. A great deal of uncertainty remains regarding the relative proportion of hatchery fish in 

natural spawning areas near major hatchery release sites. There is little evidence for substantial change in the 

DPS’s viability relative to the previous status reviews. Overall, the new information considered does not 

indicate a change in the biological risk category since the time of the last status review. 

Limiting Factors and Threats: Limiting factors and threats to the Snake River basin steelhead DPS include 

the following: 

•	 Mainstem Columbia River Hydropower–related adverse effects. 

•	 Degraded freshwater habitat: Floodplain connectivity and function, channel structure and complexity, 

riparian areas and large woody debris recruitment, stream flow, and water quality have been degraded 

as a result of cumulative impacts of agriculture, forestry, and development. 

•	 Impaired water quality and increased water temperature. 

•	 Related harvest effects, particularly for B-run steelhead. 

•	 Predation. 

•	 Genetic diversity effects from out-of-population hatchery releases. 

Conservation Actions: Major accomplishments from 2008 to 2010 for this DPS include the following: 

•	 Accomplished structural and operational modification to hydropower system 

•	 Improved federal land management practices: Land management plans of the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau 

of Land Management are being designed to protect and restore habitat. 

•	 Improved water quality permitting procedures by working with EPA to develop procedures that 

enhance salmon considerations. 

•	 Conducted local habitat restoration and restoration of stream flows. This includes efforts by the 

Northwest Power and Conservation Council Fish and Wildlife Program, PCSRF, Natural Resources 

Conservation Service, and NOAA Restoration Center, who have funded numerous projects to 

improve habitat conditions. 

•	 Equipped hundreds of irrigation diversions with fish screens. 

•	 Reduced overall harvest rates. 

•	 Conducted efforts in hatchery conservation. 

82 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

•	 Worked to improve water quantity via the Snake River basin adjudication settlement of water claims 

between the Nez Pierce Tribe and the State of Idaho, including a program to improve instream flows 

in the Lemhi River. 

•	 The 2010 FCRPS Supplemental Biological Opinion, which integrates the 2008 RPA and the Adaptive 

Management Implementation Plan, 

 Sets standards for survival of juvenile and adult salmon and steelhead migrating through the 

dams. 

 Includes a habitat program to protect and improve tributary and estuary habitat. 

 Provides new and expanded hatchery facilities and safety net conservation programs and 

supports hatchery reforms. 

 Expands efforts to reduce juvenile and adult losses from predation by birds, other fish, and 

marine mammals. 

•	 A 2008 agreement and NMFS ESA Biological Opinion for managing Columbia River tribal and nontribal fishing protects 12 ESUs and steelhead DPSs in the Columbia Basin. The new agreement and 

Biological Opinion have been adopted by the Federal Court (under the authority of U.S. v. Oregon) 

and parties to the agreement include the states of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho; the Umatilla, 

Yakama, Nez Perce, and Warm Springs tribes; the FWS; and NMFS. 

•	 Complete and implement Hatchery and Genetic Management Plans and Tribal Resource
 

Management Plans for tributary hatcheries.
 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: Priority recovery actions needed for this DPS include the following: 

•	 Continue the structural and operational modifications to hydropower dams to improve salmon 

survival in the migration corridor. 

•	 Protect high-quality habitats. 

•	 Conduct habitat restoration. 

•	 Increase instream flows. 

•	 Complete and implement Fishery Management and Evaluation Plans and Tribal Resource
 

Management Plans for tributary fisheries.
 

•	 Implement harvest agreements from U.S. v. Oregon. 

•	 Complete and implement Hatchery and Genetic Management Plans. 

•	 Control predation. 

•	 Reduce harvest of B-run steelhead in mainstem fisheries 

Recovery Priority Number: 1 

With a high magnitude of threat, high recovery potential, and the presence of conflict, this DPS has been 

assigned a recovery priority number of 1. The magnitude of threat to this DPS has been classified as high, 

because of strong risks to its abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity (which largely have 

persisted since its status was first reviewed), and because this DPS faces a strong extinction risk in the 

foreseeable future. This DPS does not meet the criteria for a moderate magnitude of threat (which stipulate 

that the species will not face extinction if recovery is temporarily held off, although there is a continuing 

population decline or threat to its habitat). Delaying recovery for this DPS would likely result in mounting 

extinction risks rather than maintaining the status quo level of risk. The recovery potential for this DPS has 

also been classified as high. Although numerous factors limit the recovery of this DPS, the source of these 

factors and their demographic impacts are relatively well understood and recovery planning is currently 

underway. Although it may be cost-prohibitive to completely address every limiting factor, it is likely that 

integrated reduction of most threats can achieve recovery of this DPS. Finally, as a complex variety of 

activities and management practices continue to impact the conservation and recovery of all Pacific salmon 

species listed under the ESA, NMFS has determined “conflict” exists with regard to this DPS. Taken 

together, these three factors correspond to a recovery priority number of 1. 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 83 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Snake River Sockeye ESU (Oncorhynchus nerka) 

Date Listed: November 20, 1991; reaffirmed 

June 28, 2005 

Legal Status: Endangered 

Recovery Plan Status: A draft plan was 

developed in March 1995, but was not adopted. 

No recovery plan has been completed, but 

recovery planning is underway. The Interior 

Columbia TRT identified independent 

populations and completed the population and 

ESU viability criteria. 

Species Status: Substantial progress has been 

made with the Snake River sockeye captive brood stock-based hatchery program, but natural production 

levels of anadromous returns remain extremely low for this ESU. Record returns of adult fish to the Stanley 

Basin were observed in 2008 and 2009 (Ford et al. 2010). In recent years, sufficient numbers of eggs, 

juveniles, and returning hatchery adults have been available from the captive brood–based program to allow 

some returning adults to spawn naturally. This is occurring in three of the Stanley Basin lakes that are 

candidates for sockeye restoration. The availability of increased numbers of adults and juveniles in recent 

years is also allowing direct evaluation of juvenile downstream passage survival and adult upstream survival. 

Although the captive brood program has been successful in providing substantial numbers of hatcheryproduced sockeye for use in supplementation efforts, substantial increases in survival rates across life history 

stages must occur in order to re‐establish sustainable natural production (e.g., Hebdon et al. 2004, Keefer et 

al. 2008). The increased abundance of hatchery-reared Snake River sockeye reduces the risk of immediate 

loss, but levels of naturally produced sockeye returns remain extremely low. As a result, overall, although the 

risk status of the Snake River sockeye salmon ESU appears to be on an improving trend, the new information 

considered does not indicate a change in the biological risk category since the time of the last status review. 

Limiting Factors and Threats: The key factor limiting recovery for this ESU is survival outside of the 

Stanley Basin. Portions of the migration corridor in the Salmon River are impeded by water quality and 

temperature (IDEQ 2002). Increased temperatures may reduce the survival of adult sockeye returning to the 

Stanley Basin. The natural hydrological regime in the upper mainstem Salmon River Basin has been altered by 

water withdrawals. In most years, sockeye adult returns to Lower Granite suffer catastrophic losses (> 50 

percent mortality in one year; Reed et al. 2003) before reaching the Stanley Basin, although the factors causing 

these losses have not been identified. In the Columbia and lower Snake River migration corridor, predation 

rates on juvenile sockeye salmon are unknown, but terns and cormorants consume 12 percent of all salmon 

smolts reaching the estuary, and piscivorous fish consume an estimated 8 percent of migrating juvenile 

salmon. 

Conservation Actions: Major accomplishments from 2008 to 2010 for this ESU include the following: 

•	 The 2010 FCRPS Supplemental Biological Opinion, which integrates the 2008 RPA and the Adaptive 

Management Implementation Plan, 

 Enables improvements in safe passage for juvenile and adult sockeye salmon migration corridors. 

 Identifies projects that will protect and improve tributary and estuary habitat for sockeye salmon. 

 Will fund expansion of captive propagation program. 

 Expands efforts to reduce juvenile and adult loses from predation by birds, other fish, and 

marine mammals. 

•	 Increased captive propagation program capacity toward goal of 1 million juveniles. 

84 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

•	 Expanded diversity of locations for releases of captive propagation program fish, and continued 

release of fish at variety of life stages (eggs, juveniles, and adults). 

•	 Conducted local habitat restoration and restoration of stream flows. This work includes efforts by 

the Northwest Power Planning Council Fish and Wildlife Program, PCSRF, Natural Resources 

Conservation Service, and the NOAA Restoration Center. 

•	 Continued installation of fish screens on irrigation diversions. 

•	 MOUs between NMFS and five states and three tribal commissions established criteria and processes 

for funding priority PCSRF projects. 

•	 MOU between federal action agencies and Shoshone-Bannock Tribes provides funding
 

commitments for habitat and other projects in the Snake River Basin.
 

•	 A 2008 agreement and NMFS ESA Biological Opinion for managing Columbia River tribal and nontribal fishing protects 12 ESUs and steelhead DPSs in the Columbia Basin. The new agreement and 

Biological Opinion have been adopted by the Federal Court (under the authority of U.S. v. Oregon) 

and parties to the agreement include the states of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho; the Umatilla, 

Yakama, Nez Perce, and Warm Springs tribes; the FWS; and NMFS. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: Priority recovery actions needed for this ESU include the following: 

•	 Continue to explore expansion of releases to multiple locations and at multiple life-history stages. 

•	 Expand captive propagation program size to maintain genetic diversity. 

•	 Expand marking of releases to evaluate habitat usage success and to identify downstream sources of 

mortality. 

•	 Improve survival in the migration corridor for adults and juveniles. 

•	 Continue the structural and operational modifications to hydropower dams to improve salmon 

survival in the migration corridor. 

•	 Continue to protect high-quality habitats and conduct habitat restoration. 

•	 Provide increases in instream flows. 

•	 Continue efforts to control predation. 

Recovery Priority Number: 3 

With a high magnitude of threat, a low to moderate recovery potential, and the presence of conflict, this ESU 

has been assigned a recovery priority number of 3. The magnitude of threat to this ESU has been classified as 

high because of strong risks to its abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity (which largely have 

persisted since its status was first reviewed), and because this ESU faces a strong extinction risk in the 

foreseeable future. This ESU does not meet the criteria for a moderate magnitude of threat (which stipulate 

that the species will not face extinction if recovery is temporarily held off, although there is a continuing 

population decline or threat to its habitat). Delaying recovery for this ESU would likely result in mounting 

extinction risks rather than maintaining the status quo level of risk. The recovery potential for this ESU has 

been classified as low to moderate. Numerous factors limit the recovery of this ESU; the source of these 

factors and their demographic impacts are not well understood and research is needed. Finally, as a complex 

variety of activities and management practices continue to impact the conservation and recovery of all Pacific 

salmon ESUs listed under the ESA, NMFS has determined “conflict” exists with regard to this ESU. Taken 

together, these three factors correspond to a recovery priority number of 3. 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 85 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oregon Coast Coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch) 

Date Listed: February 11, 2008 (NMFS 

conducted a new status review of this ESU in 

2010 and proposed to retain the threatened 

listing (75 FR 29489, May 26, 2010) 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: Recovery planning was initiated in 2005 when the ESU was previously listed. The 

State of Oregon adopted an Oregon Coast Coho Conservation Plan in 2007 prior to the ESU’s relisting in 

2008. Based on the recent listing of this ESU, recovery planning is being re-initiated in coordination with the 

State of Oregon. 

Technical Recovery Team Products: The Oregon and Northern California Coasts TRT has identified 

independent populations and completed the population and ESU viability criteria. 

Species Status: NMFS completed a new status review for this ESU in 2010. After considering new 

information, we proposed to retain the threatened listing for this ESU. While some previously identified 

threats—such as those from overharvest and hatchery practices—have been greatly reduced, others continue 

as sources of significant risk to the ESU. In particular, continued declines in freshwater habitat conditions, 

and effects of expected climate change on freshwater, estuarine, and marine habitats are concerning. 

Although significantly higher spawner returns in recent years is encouraging, these increases more likely 

reflect short-term favorable marine productivity conditions than long-term improvement in freshwater 

productivity. This ESU remains at risk of becoming endangered in the foreseeable future. 

Limiting Factors and Threats: Threats and impacts to the Oregon Coast Coho ESU include degraded 

freshwater habitat: floodplain connectivity and function, channel structure and complexity, riparian areas and 

large wood supply, stream substrate, stream flow, and water quality have been degraded as a result of 

cumulative impacts of agriculture, forestry, and development. 

Conservation Actions: Major accomplishments since the 2008 listing of this ESU include the following: 

•	 The State of Oregon adopted an Oregon Coast Coho Conservation Plan in 2007, which identifies 

limiting factors and threats and identifies actions to recover the ESU. The Plan establishes ambitious 

conservation goals and identifies a monitoring program to evaluate the effectiveness of conservation 

actions that contribute to rebuilding the ESU. 

•	 Implementation of the State’s Oregon Coast Coho Conservation Plan has included outreach, 

education, and training of watershed councils, as well as outreach to coastal lowland landowners in 

areas of high habitat value for this ESU, with particular emphasis on the agricultural community. 

•	 Habitat restoration projects: Hundreds of projects have improved riparian areas, fish passage at culvert 

barriers, and stream and floodplain function. 

•	 Improved forest management practices on federal lands and some state and private lands: The Northwest Forest 

Plan Aquatic Conservation Strategy continued in 2008–2010. The strategy is designed to conserve 

and restore salmon and steelhead habitat and provide an anchor for federal lands’ contribution to 

salmon recovery. 

•	 Hatchery reforms: Oregon’s aggressive hatchery reform work has resulted in substantial reductions of 

this threat. Hatchery coho are released in only three out of more than 56 populations in the ESU, 

and the magnitude of releases has declined from a peak of 35 million smolts in 1981 to 

approximately 500,000 in 2008. The reduction in the number of hatchery fish released has reduced 

the potential for competition with, and predation on, natural coho. All hatchery coho releases in the 

ESU are now marked, affording improved monitoring and assessment of co-existing naturally 

produced coho populations. 

86 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

•	 Harvest reforms: Restrictive harvest regulations, developed concurrently with the State of Oregon, have 

imposed conservative restrictions on directed and incidental fishery mortality, and appropriately 

consider marine survival conditions and the biological status of naturally produced coho populations. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: Priority recovery actions needed for this ESU include the following: 

•	 Develop a recovery plan in coordination with the State of Oregon. 

•	 Improve land use practices to protect existing high-quality habitats and prevent further degradation, 

along with continued targeted restoration based on priority locations and issues identified in the 

Oregon Coast Coho Conservation Plan. 

•	 Educate private landowners and develop incentives for lowland landowners to protect and restore 

high-quality coastal coho habitat. 

•	 Research and monitor the distribution, status, and trends of coho salmon. 

•	 Improve agricultural and forestry practices to address limiting factors and threats, particularly 

regarding riparian protections, road construction, and road maintenance. 

•	 Continue to remove and upgrade high-priority human-made fish passage barriers. 

•	 Conduct freshwater habitat restoration to address erosion, stabilize banks, protect and restore 

riparian habitat, and reintroduce large wood. 

•	 Improve freshwater habitat quality and quantity. 

Recovery Priority Number: 1 

With a high magnitude of threat, high recovery potential, and the presence of conflict, this ESU has been 

assigned a recovery priority number of 1. The magnitude of threat to this ESU has been classified as high, 

because of strong risks to its abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity (which largely have 

persisted since its status was first reviewed), and because this ESU faces a strong extinction risk in the 

foreseeable future. This ESU does not meet the criteria for a moderate magnitude of threat (which stipulate 

that the species will not face extinction if recovery is temporarily held off, although there is a continuing 

population decline or threat to its habitat). Delaying recovery of this ESU would likely result in mounting 

extinction risks rather than maintaining the status quo level of risk. The recovery potential for this ESU has 

also been classified as high. Although numerous factors limit the recovery of this ESU, the source of these 

factors and their demographic impacts are relatively well understood and recovery planning is currently 

underway. Although it may be cost-prohibitive to completely address every limiting factor, it is likely that 

integrated reduction of most threats can achieve recovery of this ESU. Finally, as a complex variety of 

activities and management practices continue to impact the conservation and recovery of all Pacific salmon 

ESUs listed under the ESA, NMFS has determined “conflict” exists with regard to this ESU. Taken together, 

these three factors correspond to a recovery priority number of 1. 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 87 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Salmon Recovery Overlapping in the Northwest and Southwest 

Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast Coho ESU (Oncorhynchus 

kisutch) 

Date Listed: May 6, 1997 (62 FR 24588); 

reaffirmed June 28, 2005 (70 FR 37160) 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: The recovery plan is 

currently in development. NMFS completed a 

co-manager/peer review draft of the recovery 

plan in June 2009, and expects to release a 

public review draft in 2011. 

Species Status: The SONCC coho salmon 

ESU is made up of 45 populations, which 

generally correspond to river basins. The 

number of spawners in each of these 

populations is well below that needed to 

persist over time without the protections of 

the ESA. Many of these populations contain 

so few spawners that an individual spawner’s reproductive success suffers due to an inability to find mates or 

an increased chance of being preyed upon. These populations include those in the Shasta River, Upper 

Klamath River, Salmon River, Mattole River, Middle Mainstem Eel River, Mainstem Eel River, and Lower 

Eel/Van Duzen River. Several independent populations no longer support any coho salmon, including those 

in the Middle Fork Eel River and North Fork Eel River. 

All available information indicates that coho salmon abundance in this ESU has decreased since the last status 

review in 2005. The longest existing time series from the past 9 years for Shasta River has a significant 

negative trend, and two extensive time series from the Rogue River Basin show recent negative trends. 

Threats and Impacts: The declining trends and low spawner abundance for most populations in the ESU 

demonstrate the need to improve freshwater habitat conditions across the ESU so that the populations can 

regain some aspects of their historical resiliency to counter fluctuations in marine survival. 

Critical threats to SONCC coho salmon include: (1) timber harvest practices on private lands, (2) roads, (3) 

agriculture operations and grazing, (4) urbanization, (5) water withdrawal; (6) stream channelization, (7) small 

population dynamics, and (8) climate change. As a result of past and current threats, the following critical 

stresses persist in the ESU: (1) lack of floodplain and channel structure, (2) impaired water quality, (3) altered 

hydrologic function due to altered amount and timing of river flows, (4) degraded riparian forest conditions, 

(5) altered sediment supply, and (6) impaired estuarine function. 

Unlike the other four listing factors (habitat alteration, overutilization, disease and predation, and regulatory 

mechanisms), threats from natural or man-made factors have worsened in the past 5 years, primarily due to 

four factors: small population dynamics, climate change, multi-year drought, and poor ocean survival 

conditions. 

1.	 Small populations experience dynamics that significantly increase the risk of extinction. Given the 

small size of many populations in the ESU, stochastic processes are likely contributing to population 

instability and decline. 

Photo credit: Thomas Dunklin 

88 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.	 Expected impacts on SONCC coho salmon from climate change include greater climate extremes, 

decreased streamflows as a result of decreasing snowpack, warmer instream water temperatures, 

warmer stream and coastal ocean temperatures, more frequent wildfires, delays in the onset of coastal 

upwelling and associated delays in ocean spring bloom, and declining ocean conditions. 

3.	 Three consecutive years of drought in California from water years 2007 to 2009 led to decreased 

instream flows and worsened habitat conditions for juvenile SONCC coho salmon in two-thirds of 

the range. 

4.	 Data from hatchery fish released in Oregon indicate extremely low marine survival for the 2005 and 

2006 brood years. 

Conservation Actions: During 2008–2010, key conservation actions included: 

•	 Continued work on recovery plan, including preparation of 45 profiles explaining each of the 

populations, completion of a threats assessment, and identification of recovery actions. 

•	 On February 18, 2010, NOAA signed the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement and issued a 

strong letter of support for the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement. Together, these Agreements 

represent the largest dam removal and watershed restoration effort in United States history. 

•	 NMFS worked very closely with PacifiCorp on developing a HCP for operation and maintenance of 

its Klamath Hydroelectric Project—which includes a $500,000 coho enhancement fund. 

•	 NMFS has worked very closely with PacifiCorp and the California Department of Fish and Game 

(CDFG) on a Hatchery Genetic Management Plan to modify operations at Iron Gate Hatchery on 

the Klamath River so they are consistent with conservation principles to benefit coho salmon. 

•	 Conducted over 200 ESA section 7 consultations with federal action agencies that fund, authorize, or 

carry out projects such as irrigation, water diversion, timber harvest, watershed restoration, fish 

passage, gravel mining, grazing, and transportation projects. 

•	 Collaborated with California Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway Administration, 

and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on program-level consultation for routine road maintenance 

activities. Recently developed streamlined consultation procedures will be used. 

•	 Provided technical assistance to the Corps of Engineers on how to reduce effects of gravel and 

vegetation removal, and flood control activities, on coho salmon in lower Redwood Creek. 

•	 Completed consultation with the Corps of Engineers addressing gravel mining at multiple sites along 

rivers in Del Norte, Humboldt, and Mendocino Counties. 

•	 Collaborated with Fruit Growers Supply Company on an HCP for lands in the Klamath River basin. 

The HCP covers approximately 154,000 acres of industrial timberlands. 

•	 Continued implementation monitoring on three existing HCPs. The HCPs for Humboldt Redwood 

Company (formerly Pacific Lumber Company) and Green Diamond Resource Company pertain to 

management of industrial timberlands and include activities related to timber management and forest 

road development and maintenance. The Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District HCP was 

developed to reduce direct salmonid mortality at the water diversion and better coordinate 

withdrawals to improve flow in the Mad River. 

•	 Continued collaboration with the Bureau of Reclamation on the Rogue River Basin Project for 

several irrigation districts. 

•	 Consulted with the Bureau of Reclamation on the Savage Rapids Dam removal and irrigation pump 

installation. Savage Rapids Dam was removed in 2009. 

•	 Completed consultation with the city of Gold Hill, the Rogue Valley Council of Governments, and 

other agencies involved with the removal of the Gold Hill Dam on the Rogue River. Gold Hill Dam 

was removed in 2008. 

•	 Worked with the Corps of Engineers and other agencies on the removal of Elk Creek Dam, which 

was completed in 2008. 

•	 Consulted with Jackson County and other agencies on the removal of Gold Ray Dam on the Rogue 

River. Gold Ray Dam was removed in 2010. 

•	 Provided technical assistance and funding to multiple stakeholders on activities to restore SONCC 

coho salmon habitat. Restoration activities included removing barriers to fish passage, creating offwww.nmfs.noaa.gov 89 
 

 

 

 

channel overwintering habitat, installing complex instream structures, restoring estuarine function, 

removing invasive plants, planting native vegetation, and using fencing to exclude cattle from 

streams. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

•	 Restore upstream and downstream passage at dams in the Klamath River basin and other critically 

important locations. 

•	 Restore juvenile summer and winter rearing habitat, including estuarine habitat, by reconnecting 

channels to floodplains and increasing channel complexity. 

•	 Ensure sufficient water supply and allocation by establishing water rights programs, designating fully 

appropriated watersheds, developing passive diversion devices or off-stream storage, eliminating 

illegal water diversions, and improving water drafting and dam operation practices. 

•	 Reduce chronic sediment input from roads by conducting focused road treatment and
 

decommissioning at key locations and improving road building and maintenance practices.
 

•	 Restore riparian vegetation by improving riparian protection requirements associated with 

agricultural and forestry practices, and planting vegetation near streams.
 

•	 Monitor distribution, status, and trends of coho salmon and its freshwater and estuarine habitat. 

Recovery Priority Number: 1 

This priority number is based on a high magnitude of threat, a high potential for recovery, and anticipated 

conflict with current and future land disturbance and water-associated development within the range of the 

ESU. 

90 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Salmon Recovery in the Southwest 

Central California Coast Coho Salmon ESU (Oncorhynchus kisutch) 

Date Listed: October 31, 1996 (61 FR 56138) 

relisted June 28, 2005 (70 FR 37160) 

Legal Status: Endangered (reclassified from 

original threatened listing) 

Recovery Plan Status: The Recovery Outline 

was completed in October 2005. The Public 

Draft recovery plan for CCC coho salmon was 

released to the public in March 2010. A final 

recovery plan is scheduled for late 2011 or early 

2012. 

Species Status: Near Extinction 

The Central California Coast coho salmon ESU 

includes all naturally spawned populations from Punta Gorda in northern California to the south (including 

the San Lorenzo River in central California), as well as populations in tributaries to San Francisco Bay 

(excluding the Sacramento–San Joaquin River system). Four artificial propagation programs are considered 

part of this ESU: the Don Clausen/Warm Springs Fish Hatchery Captive Broodstock Program, Scott 

Creek/King Fisher Flats Conservation Program, Scott Creek Captive Broodstock Program, and the Noyo 

River Fish Station Egg-take Program coho hatchery program. The artificially propagated stocks are no more 

than moderately divergent genetically from natural populations. 

All population data and information indicate that the CCC coho salmon ESU is critically close to

extinction. Only a few hundred adults have returned annually over the past several years. CCC coho salmon 

are extirpated in all but a few watersheds south of the Navarro River. Poor freshwater survival and poor 

ocean conditions/ocean survival are acting on the population in synchrony to result in the population 

collapse. The NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center indicates that: “Near final data from across the 

range of coho salmon on the coast of California reveal there was a 72% decline in returning adults in 2007/08 

compared to the same cohort in 2004/05” (MacFarlane et al. 2008). 

Information on the abundance and productivity trends for the naturally spawning component of the CCC 

coho ESU is extremely limited. No long-term time series of spawner abundance exist for individual river 

systems. Data are particularly lacking for many river basins in the southern two-thirds of the ESU, where 

naturally spawning populations are considered to be at the greatest risk. Analyses of juvenile coho presenceabsence information, juvenile density surveys, and irregular adult counts for the South Fork Noyo River 

indicate low abundance and long-term downward trends. The extirpation or near extirpation of natural coho 

salmon populations in several major river basins and across most of the southern historical range of the ESU 

represents a significant risk to ESU spatial structure and diversity. Trend data for this ESU show a continuing 

decline in abundance and a population that is on a trajectory toward extinction. The status and ESU boundary 

for CCC coho salmon will be reviewed by the BRT in the near future; however, consideration of new 

information for the status review update suggests that extinction risk for CCC coho salmon has worsened. 

Threats and Impacts: The following limiting factors, and their level of threat to this ESU, were evaluated 

during the development of the draft Recovery Plan: 

Degraded Habitat-Estuarine and Nearshore Marine: High Threat 

Photo credit: Morgan Bond, Southwest Fisheries Science Center 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 91 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Degraded Habitat-Floodplain Connectivity and Function: High Threat 

Degraded Habitat-Channel Structure and Complexity: Moderate Threat 

Degraded Habitat-Riparian Areas and Large Woody Debris Recruitment: High Threat 

Degraded Habitat-Stream Substrate: Moderate to High Threat 

Degraded Habitat-Stream Flow: Moderate Threat 

Degraded Habitat-Water Quality: Moderate to High Threat 

Degraded Habitat-Fish Passage: Moderate to High Threat 

Hatchery-related Adverse Effects: Low Threat 

Harvest-related Adverse Effects: High Threat 

Predation/Competition/ Disease: High Threat 

The remaining CCC coho salmon persist predominantly on non-federal forestlands except for Lagunitas 

Creek. Final Rules were adopted by the Governor-appointed Board of Forestry in 2009; however, questions 

remain regarding their adequacy to fully protect salmon and steelhead. Other critical sources of threats to this 

ESU include: (1) lack of oversight on county grading activities; (2) water use, riparian forest removal, erosion, 

road building, and other practices associated with agricultural operations; (3) changes to channel morphology 

and reduced floodplain connectivity due to levee construction, flood control structures, roads, erosion control 

structures, and urbanization; (4) urbanization and rural development leading to reduced riparian forests, 

pollution, unscreened water diversions, and water demands exceeding availability; (5) potential genetic 

modification in hatchery stocks resulting from domestication selection; (6) incidental mortality from catchand-release hooking; (7) climatic variation leading to drought, flooding, and variable ocean conditions; and (8) 

predation. 

Conservation Actions: During 2008–2010, key conservation actions included: 

•	 Secured first Conservation Bank for CCC coho salmon. 

•	 Conducted section 7 consultations with key water agencies to improve conservation (includes 2008 

completed Russian River Biological Opinion for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Sonoma County 

Water Agency operations). 

•	 Worked with California Board of Forestry as they proposed new rules for the protection of
 

salmonids and their habitats.
 

•	 Continued to implement the Fish Friendly Farming program, a multi-agency, third-party certification 

and technical assistance program for wine grape growers practicing best management practices for 

salmon. Over 10,000 acres of private property have been inspected and certified through this 

program. 

•	 Collaborated proactively with counties on Grading Ordinances and Riparian Ordinances. 

•	 Worked to implement white papers for instream flow, gravel mining, and summer dams. 

•	 Encouraged FishNet 4C, a multi-county group, dedicating resources to county restoration activities 

focused on salmon and steelhead restoration. 

•	 Continued hatchery improvements for coho salmon broodstock at Warm Springs Dam. 

•	 Continued participation with the PCSRF Grant program. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: The first priority is to act immediately to prevent the extinction 

of CCC coho salmon from California’s central coast. This would include: 

1.	 Protect all existing populations and increase survival for individuals and their offspring. 

2.	 Conduct focused and careful restoration work in areas known to support the last remaining
 

populations to increase probability of juvenile/smolt survival.
 

3.	 Consider expanding captive broodstock programs to preserve the remaining genetic diversity. 

Funding for the Monterey Bay Salmon and Trout Project is critical in preserving the last genetic 

stock for the southern extent of coho salmon. 

4.	 Conduct immediate outreach to inform the public, anglers, agencies, etc., of the critical status of 

CCC coho. 

92 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Other Needs: 

•	 Research and monitor distribution, status, and trends of coho salmon. 

•	 Encourage landowners to implement instream restoration, which includes incentivizing permitting 

processes and providing additional financial assistance. 

•	 Address water diversions in the core watersheds where coho salmon are persisting. 

•	 Provide a process to allow large wood input to be conducted in association with logging. 

•	 Protect and restore habitat complexity and connectivity across the watershed. 

•	 Conduct focused freshwater habitat restoration in anadromous salmonid streams (e.g., erosion 

control, bank stabilization, riparian protection/restoration, and large wood input). 

•	 Improve baseflows via innovations in the water rights program, designate fully appropriated 

watersheds, develop passive diversion devices or off-stream storage, eliminate illegal water diversions, 

and improve criteria for drafting and dam operations. 

•	 Improve agricultural and forestry practices, in particular riparian protections, road construction, and 

road maintenance. 

•	 Improve county and city planning, regulations (e.g., riparian and grading ordinances), and county 

road maintenance programs. 

•	 Remove/upgrade high-priority man-made fish passage barriers (e.g., watercourse crossings and nonhydropower dams) and implement screening of all water diversions. 

•	 Replace existing outdated septic systems and improve wastewater management. 

•	 Identify and treat point and non-point source pollution of streams from wastewater, agricultural 

practices, and urban environments. 

•	 Modify channel and flood control maintenance and eliminate artificial breeching of sandbars for 

improvements in channel and estuarine habitats. 

Recovery Priority Number: 1 

Ranking for CCC coho salmon was based on a high degree of threat, a high recovery potential, and an 

anticipated conflict with economic activity. The BRT agreed in 2005 that natural populations of coho salmon 

in the CCC coho ESU are in danger of extinction. This determination was based on the following factors: (1) 

substantially low abundance of coho salmon from historical levels (e.g., more than 50 percent of coho 

streams no longer have spawning runs), (2) long-term trends clearly downward, (3) degraded habitats, (4) 

threats to genetic integrity due to hatchery plantings, and (5) recent droughts and change in ocean 

productivity. The status reviews underway are likely to determine that the extinction risk for CCC coho 

salmon has worsened. NMFS believes that a moderate to high potential for recovery is possible for CCC 

coho salmon because of the likelihood that freshwater impacts can be substantially controlled or reduced 

through habitat protection, implementation of best management practices, and focused restoration. Over 80 

percent of the range of CCC coho lies under private ownership. Forestry is the predominant land use; 

however, high levels of forest conversion to agriculture and urbanization are currently underway. Imminent 

land use changes are anticipated to conflict with the conservation needs of CCC coho salmon. 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 93 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Northern California Steelhead DPS (Oncorhynchus mykiss) 

Date Listed: June 7, 2000 (65 FR 36074) and 

reaffirmed January 5, 2006 (71 FR 834) 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: The Recovery 

Outline was completed and signed July 16, 

2007. A Draft Multi-Species (Northern 

California steelhead, Coastal California (CC) 

Chinook, Central California Coast (CCC) 

steelhead) Recovery Plan is in development 

and expected to be released for peer and comanager review in 2011. 

Species Status: The Northern California 

steelhead DPS includes all naturally spawned 

populations of steelhead in California coastal 

river basins from Redwood Creek (inclusive) southward to the Russian River (exclusive). Two artificial 

propagation programs are considered part of the DPS: the Yager Creek Hatchery and the North Fork 

Gualala River Hatchery (Gualala River Steelhead Project). 

Little historical abundance information exists for the naturally spawning portion of the Northern California 

steelhead DPS. Although data were relatively limited, analysis by the original BRT in the 1996 status review 

suggested the following conclusions: (1) population abundances were low relative to historical estimates, (2) 

recent trends were downward, and (3) summer-run steelhead abundance was very low. The BRT was also 

concerned about the negative influences of hatchery stocks, especially from the Mad River Hatchery which is 

not considered part of the DPS. The Mad River Hatchery program was terminated in 2004, thus reducing the 

genetic risks associated with propagation of these fish. 

Data for the 2005 status review showed both upward and downward trends for populations within this DPS. 

The Middle Fork Eel River and Mad River portions showed a downward trend in adult returns, while juvenile 

abundance for 10 independent populations showed both upward and downward trends. Overall, the 2005 

status review showed that the DPS was declining during the time for which data were available. 

The 2011 status review update is underway with the boundaries and status of both CCC steelhead and 

Northern California steelhead DPS’ to be reviewed by a BRT in the near future. Thus, the status of the 

Northern California steelhead DPS remains unchanged for this biennial review. 

The two artificial propagation programs that are part of the Northern California steelhead DPS are thought 

to decrease risk of extinction to some degree by contributing to increased abundance. Additionally, changes 

to regulations concerning sport fishing likely reduce the extinction risk for the DPS. Ultimately, however, the 

most recent status review concluded that steelhead in the Northern California steelhead DPS remain likely to 

become endangered in the foreseeable future. 

Threats and Impacts: The following limiting factors, and their level of threat to this DPS, were evaluated 

during the development of the Internal Draft Multi-Species Recovery Plan: 

Degraded Habitat-Estuarine and Nearshore Marine: High Threat 

Degraded Habitat-Floodplain Connectivity and Function: Moderate to High Threat 

Degraded Habitat-Channel Structure and Complexity: Moderate Threat 

Photo credit: Josh Fuller, NMFS Santa Rosa 

94 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Degraded Habitat-Riparian Areas and Large Woody Debris Recruitment: Moderate Threat 

Degraded Habitat-Stream Substrate: Moderate to High Threat 

Degraded Habitat-Stream Flow: Moderate Threat 

Degraded Habitat-Water Quality: Moderate to High Threat 

Degraded Habitat-Fish Passage: High Threat 

Hatchery-related Adverse Effects: Low Threat 

Harvest-related Adverse Effects: Moderate to High Threat 

Predation/Competition/ Disease: High Threat 

California’s non-federal forest harvest operations are identified in the final listing notice as a critical threat to 

this DPS. Although this threat continues, California is revising their Forest Practice Rules with the intent to 

protect watersheds with anadromous salmonids. Final Rules were adopted by the Governor-appointed Board 

of Forestry in 2009; however, questions remain regarding their adequacy to fully protect salmon and 

steelhead. 

Other critical sources of threats to this DPS include: (1) lack of oversight on county grading activities that 

may affect steelhead; (2) water use, riparian forest removal, erosion, road building, and other practices 

associated with agricultural operations; (3) changes to channel morphology and reduced floodplain 

connectivity due to levee construction, flood control structures, roads, erosion control structures, and 

urbanization; (4) urbanization and rural development leading to reduced riparian forests, pollution, 

unscreened water diversions, and water demands exceeding availability; (5) potential genetic modification in 

hatchery stocks resulting from domestication selection; (6) incidental mortality from catch-and-release 

hooking; (7) climatic variation leading to drought, flooding, and variable ocean conditions; and (8) predation. 

Conservation Actions: During 2008–2010, key conservation actions included: 

•	 Continued to work with California Board of Forestry as they revised their forest practice rules to 

provide for salmonids and their habitats. 

•	 Improved baseflows via improvements to the water rights program, by working to designate fully 

appropriated watersheds, develop passive diversion devices or off-stream storage, eliminate illegal 

water diversions, and improve criteria for water drafting and dam operations. 

•	 Continued to implement Fish Friendly Farming program, a multi-agency, third-party certification and 

technical assistance program for wine grape growers practicing best management practices for 

salmon. Over 10,000 acres of private property have been inspected and certified through this 

program. 

•	 Collaborated proactively with counties on General Plan Updates, Grading Ordinances, and Riparian 

Ordinances. 

•	 Implemented white papers and policies for instream flow, gravel mining, and summer dams. 

•	 Encouraged FishNet 4C, a multi-county group, dedicating resources to county restoration activities 

focused on salmon and steelhead restoration. 

•	 Continued participation with PCSRF Grant program. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

•	 Research and monitor distribution, status, and trends of steelhead. 

•	 Continue to improve baseflows via innovations to the water rights program, designate fully 

appropriated watersheds, develop passive diversion devices or off-stream storage, eliminate illegal 

water diversions, and improve criteria for water drafting and dam operations. 

•	 Continue working with the California Board of Forestry regarding non-federal timber harvest 

operations and possible statewide forestry plan. 

•	 Promote operations of current recovery hatcheries and develop Hatchery and Genetics Management 

Plans to minimize negative influences of hatcheries. 

•	 Improve freshwater habitat quantity and quality. 

•	 Protect and restore habitat complexity and connectivity from the upper watershed to the ocean. 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 95 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

•	 Conduct focused freshwater habitat restoration in anadromous salmonid streams (e.g., erosion 

control, bank stabilization, riparian protection and restoration, and reintroduction of large woody 

debris). 

•	 Improve agricultural and forestry practices, in particular riparian protections, road construction, and 

road maintenance. 

•	 Improve county and city planning, regulations (e.g., riparian and grading ordinances), and county 

road maintenance programs. 

•	 Remove/upgrade high-priority man-made fish passage barriers (e.g., watercourse crossings and nonhydropower dams). 

•	 Implement screening of all water diversion structures. 

•	 Replace existing outdated septic systems and improve wastewater management. 

•	 Identify and treat point and non-point source pollution of streams from wastewater, agricultural 

practices, and urban environments. 

•	 Modify channel and flood control maintenance and eliminate artificial breeching of sandbars for 

improvements in channel and estuarine habitats. 

Recovery Priority Number: 5 

The recovery priority number for the Northern California steelhead DPS is based on a moderate degree of 

threat, a high recovery potential, and anticipated conflict with development projects or other economic 

activity. A majority of the BRT that conducted the 2005 status review of steelhead populations in 

Washington, Oregon, and California concluded that natural populations of Northern California steelhead are 

likely to become endangered. Abundance and productivity were of concern, while spatial structure and 

diversity were of lower concern. Uncertainty resulting from lack of data was considered by the BRT to be a 

source of risk, especially for the winter-run portion of this DPS. Due to the lack of data, the recovery priority 

number will be reevaluated in the future as the recovery plan is developed. A high potential for recovery 

exists for the Northern California steelhead DPS because the majority of the DPS is not presently in urban 

environments. Imminent land use changes and economic activities (timber, ranching, and agriculture) are 

anticipated to conflict with the conservation needs of Northern California steelhead. 

96 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

California Coastal Chinook Salmon ESU (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) 

Date Listed: September 16, 1999 

(64 FR 50394) and reaffirmed June 

28, 2005 (70 FR 37160) 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: The 

Recovery Outline was completed and 

signed July 16, 2007. A Multi-Species 

(Northern California steelhead, CC 

Chinook, CCC steelhead) Recovery 

Plan is in development and expected 

to be released for peer and comanager review in 2011. 

Species Status: The California 

Coastal (CC) Chinook salmon ESU 

includes all naturally spawned 

populations of Chinook salmon from rivers and streams south of the Klamath River (exclusive) to the 

Russian River (inclusive). Seven artificial propagation programs are considered part of the ESU: the 

Humboldt Fish Action Council (Freshwater Creek), Yager Creek, Redwood Creek, Hollow Tree, Van Arsdale 

Fish Station, Mattole Salmon Group, and Mad River Hatchery fall-run Chinook hatchery programs. 

Information on abundance and productivity trends for the naturally spawning component of the CC Chinook 

salmon ESU is extremely limited. A status review conducted by the BRT in 2005 concluded that CC Chinook 

salmon continue to exhibit depressed population sizes relative to historical abundances. A reduction of 

geographic distribution was also noted, particularly for spring-run Chinook salmon (which may no longer be 

extant anywhere in the range of this ESU) and from basins in the southern portion of the ESU. Analyses of 

the few time series of data available for this ESU showed mixed trends. Positive trends seemed apparent at 

Freshwater Creek and Mad River, while trends from the Eel River were generally negative. Recent strong 

return numbers to the Russian River have been documented, but the genetic relatedness of these fish to 

others in the ESU is uncertain. The lack of data and resultant uncertainty associated with estimates of 

abundance contribute substantially to assessments of risk facing the CC Chinook salmon ESU. 

For the current 2011 status review underway, new data are available for CC Chinook salmon. However, these 

new data create uncertainty regarding status and, thus, a change of status is not being recommended at this 

time. 

Artificial propagation of Chinook salmon from the seven hatcheries included in the CC Chinook salmon ESU 

remains at low levels. It is unknown whether these hatcheries are a benefit or detriment to the naturally 

spawning portion of the ESU. 

Threats and Impacts: The following limiting factors, and their level of threat to this ESU, were evaluated 

during the development of the Multi-Species draft Recovery Plan: 

Degraded Habitat-Estuarine and Nearshore Marine: High Threat 

Degraded Habitat-Floodplain Connectivity and Function: High Threat 

Degraded Habitat-Channel Structure and Complexity: Moderate Threat 

Degraded Habitat-Riparian Areas and Large Woody Debris Recruitment: Moderate Threat 

Degraded Habitat-Stream Substrate: Moderate Threat 

Degraded Habitat-Stream Flow: Moderate to High Threat 

Photo credit: Cathy Myers 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 97 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Degraded Habitat-Water Quality: Moderate Threat
 

Degraded Habitat-Fish Passage: High Threat
 

Hatchery-related Adverse Effects: Very Low Threat
 

Harvest-related Adverse Effects: High Threat
 

Predation/Competition/ Disease: High Threat
 

Chinook populations overlay with large tracts of non-federal forestlands. Final Rules were adopted by the 

Governor-appointed Board of Forestry in 2009; however, questions remain regarding their adequacy to fully 

protect salmon and steelhead. 

Other critical sources of threats to this ESU include: (1) lack of oversight on county grading activities that 

may affect salmon; (2) water use, riparian forest removal, erosion, road building, and other practices 

associated with agricultural operations; (3) changes to channel morphology and reduced floodplain 

connectivity due to levee construction, flood control structures, roads, erosion control structures, and 

urbanization; (4) urbanization and rural development leading to reduced riparian forests, pollution, 

unscreened water diversions, and water demands exceeding availability; (5) potential genetic modification in 

hatchery stocks resulting from domestication selection; (6) incidental mortality from catch-and-release 

hooking; (7) climatic variation leading to drought, flooding, and variable ocean conditions; and (8) predation. 

Conservation Actions: During 2008–2010, key conservation actions included: 

•	 Worked to improve baseflows via upgrades to the water rights program, designate fully appropriated 

watersheds, develop passive diversion devices or offstream storage, eliminate illegal water diversions, 

and improve criteria for water drafting and dam operations. 

•	 Worked with California Board of Forestry as they proposed new rules to protect salmonids and their 

habitats. 

•	 Continued to implement the Fish Friendly Farming program, a multi-agency, third-party certification 

and technical assistance program for wine grape growers practicing best management practices for 

salmon. Over 10,000 acres of private property have been inspected and certified through this 

program. 

•	 Collaborated proactively with counties on General Plan Updates, Grading Ordinances, and Riparian 

Ordinances. 

•	 Worked to implement white papers and policies for instream flow, gravel mining, and summer dams. 

•	 Encouraged FishNet 4C, a multi-county group dedicating resources to county restoration activities 

focused on salmon and steelhead restoration. 

•	 Continued recovery hatchery improvements to coho salmon captive broodstock activities at Warm 

Springs Dam. 

•	 Continued participation with PCSRF grant program. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

•	 Focus restoration on increasing survival in currently occupied watersheds. 

•	 Conduct focused freshwater habitat restoration (e.g., erosion control, bank stabilization, riparian 

protection and restoration, and reintroduction of large woody debris). 

•	 Research and monitor distribution, status, and trends of Chinook salmon. 

•	 Consider freshwater fishing closures prior to January and low-flow closures thereafter. 

•	 Improve estuarine habitat quantity and quality. 

•	 Improve agricultural and forestry practices, in particular riparian protections, road construction, and 

road maintenance. 

•	 Consider low-flow freshwater fishing closures. 

•	 Improve county and city planning, regulations (e.g., riparian and grading ordinances), and county 

road maintenance programs. 

•	 Remove/upgrade high-priority fish passage barriers (e.g., watercourse crossings and non-hydropower 

dams) and implement screening of all water diversion structures. 

98 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

•	 Replace existing outdated septic systems and improve wastewater management. 

•	 Identify and treat point and non-point source pollution of streams from wastewater, agricultural 

practices, and urban environments. 

•	 Modify channel and flood control maintenance and eliminate artificial breeching of sandbars for 

improvements in channel and estuarine habitats. 

Recovery Priority Number: 3 

Ranking is based on a high degree of threat, a low to moderate recovery potential, and anticipated conflict 

with development projects or other economic activity. The high degree of threat is based on: (1) evidence that 

suggests populations have been extirpated in the southern part of the ESU, or are extremely low in 

abundance, and (2) loss of the CC Chinook salmon life history form. A low to moderate potential for 

recovery is possible for CC Chinook based on the extremely limited availability of data and the moderate 

likelihood that freshwater impacts can be substantially controlled or reduced through habitat protection, 

implementation of best management practices, and focused restoration. Imminent land use changes and 

encroaching urbanization into rural areas are anticipated to conflict with the conservation needs of CC 

Chinook. No change in the priority number is recommended in the pending updated status review. 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 99 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Central California Coast Steelhead DPS (Oncorhynchus mykiss) 

Date Listed: August 18, 1997 (62 FR 43937), 

reaffirmed January 5, 2006 (71 FR 834) 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: The Recovery 

Outline was completed and signed May 31, 

2007. A Draft Multi-Species (Northern 

California steelhead, CC Chinook, CCC 

steelhead) Recovery Plan is in development 

and is expected to be released for peer and comanager review in 2011. 

Species Status: The CCC steelhead DPS includes all naturally spawned populations of steelhead in coastal 

streams from the Russian River to Aptos Creek, and the drainages of San Francisco, San Pablo, and Suisun 

Bays eastward to Chipps Island at the confluence of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers; and tributary 

streams to Suisun Marsh including Suisun Creek, Green Valley Creek, and an unnamed tributary to Cordelia 

Slough (commonly referred to as Red Top Creek), exclusive of the Sacramento–San Joaquin River Basin of 

the California Central Valley. Two artificial propagation programs are considered part of the DPS: the Don 

Clausen Fish Hatchery and the Kingfisher Flat Hatchery/Scott Creek (Monterey Bay Salmon and Trout 

Project). 

Information on abundance and productivity trends for the naturally spawning component of the CCC 

steelhead DPS is extremely limited. There are no time series of population abundance for the naturally 

spawned adult component of the DPS; however, estimates of steelhead statewide show a reduction in 

number from 603,000 in the early 1960s to 240,000–275,000 in the 1980s, indicating a potential decline of at 

least 54 percent. Within the CCC steelhead DPS, estimates of run sizes in the largest river system, the Russian 

River, have gone from 65,000 in the 1960s to 1,750–7,000 in the 1990s, indicating a potential decline of at 

least 89 percent. Abundance in smaller streams within the DPS was assessed as stable but at low levels. 

Short time series of juvenile abundance exist for a number of sites within the CCC steelhead DPS. An 

analysis of these data indicated a downward trend in fish populations at five locations where adequate 

information was available: San Lorenzo River, Scott Creek, Waddell Creek, Gazos Creek, and Redwood 

Creek in Marin County. Although an overall reduction in juvenile abundance is implied by this analysis, it is 

unclear how such a reduction ultimately affects numbers of returning adults. 

In lieu of abundance data, information on available habitat can provide insight about population status. 

Although small populations of steelhead occur in watersheds throughout the DPS, impassible dams have cut 

off substantial portions of habitat in some basins, generating concern about the spatial structure of the 

naturally spawning component of the DPS. In the San Francisco Estuary, for example, approximately 58 

percent of historically occupied streams no longer support anadromy. For the DPS as a whole, 22 percent of 

historical habitat is estimated to be behind recent (usually man-made) barriers. 

The two artificial propagation programs that are part of the CCC steelhead DPS are thought to decrease risk 

of extinction to some degree by contributing to increased abundance. Additionally, changes to regulations 

concerning sport fishing likely reduce the extinction risk for the DPS. The previous status review concluded 

that steelhead in the CCC steelhead DPS are likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future. 

Photo credit: Josh Fuller, NMFS Santa Rosa 

100 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The 2011 status review update is underway with the boundaries and status of both CCC steelhead and 

Northern California steelhead to be reviewed by a BRT in the near future. Thus, the status of the CCC 

steelhead DPS remains unchanged for this biennial review. 

Threats and Impacts: The following limiting factors, and their level of threat to this DPS, were evaluated 

during the development of the Internal Draft Multi-Species Recovery Plan: 

Degraded Habitat-Estuarine and Nearshore Marine: Moderate Threat 

Degraded Habitat-Floodplain Connectivity and Function: Moderate to High Threat 

Degraded Habitat-Channel Structure and Complexity: Moderate Threat 

Degraded Habitat-Riparian Areas and Large Woody Debris Recruitment: Moderate Threat 

Degraded Habitat-Stream Substrate: Moderate to High Threat 

Degraded Habitat-Stream Flow: Moderate Threat 

Degraded Habitat-Water Quality: High Threat 

Degraded Habitat-Fish Passage: High Threat 

Hatchery-related Adverse Effects: Low Threat 

Harvest-related Adverse Effects: Moderate to High Threat 

Predation/Competition/Disease: High Threat 

Critical sources of threats to this DPS include: (1) lack of oversight on county grading activities that may 

affect steelhead; (2) changes to channel morphology and reduced floodplain connectivity due to levee 

construction, flood control structures, roads, erosion control structures, and urbanization; (3) urbanization 

and rural development leading to reduced riparian forests, pollution, unscreened water diversions, and water 

demands exceeding availability; (4) incidental mortality from catch-and-release hooking; (5) climatic variation 

leading to drought, flooding, and variable ocean conditions; (6) predation; and (7) loss of historical habitats 

due to dams and barriers. 

Conservation Actions: During 2008–2010, key conservation actions included: 

•	 Formation of a CCC steelhead DPS Statement of Agreements between NMFS and San Francisco 

Bay Area Water Agencies to exchange information for recovery planning. 

•	 Conducted section 7 consultations with key water agencies to improve conservation (includes 2008 

completed Russian River Biological Opinion for U.S. Army Corps and Sonoma County Water 

Agency operations). 

•	 Collaborated proactively with counties on General Plan Updates, Grading Ordinances, and Riparian 

Ordinances. 

•	 Worked to implement white papers and policies for instream flow, gravel mining, and summer dams. 

•	 Encouraged FishNet 4C, a multi-county group, dedicating resources to county restoration activities 

focused on salmon and steelhead restoration. 

•	 Continued participation with PCSRF Grant program. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

•	 Research and monitor distribution, status, and trends of steelhead. 

•	 Improve baseflows via innovations to the water rights program, designate fully appropriated 

watersheds, develop passive diversion devices or offstream storage, eliminate illegal water diversions, 

and improve criteria for water drafting and dam operations. 

•	 Promote operations of current recovery hatcheries and develop Hatchery and Genetics Management 

Plans to minimize negative influences of hatcheries. 

•	 Facilitate fish passage in Alameda Creek. 

•	 Work in urban environments to educate the public, cities, and counties to work toward fish-friendly 

solutions on water flow and fish passage, and on reducing pollution. 

•	 Improve freshwater habitat quantity and quality. 

•	 Protect and restore habitat complexity and connectivity from the upper watershed to the ocean. 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 101 
 

 

 

 

•	 Conduct focused freshwater habitat restoration in anadromous salmonid streams (e.g., erosion 

control, bank stabilization, riparian protection and restoration, and reintroduction of large woody 

debris). 

•	 Improve county/city planning, regulations (e.g., riparian and grading ordinances), and county road 

maintenance programs. 

•	 Remove/upgrade high-priority man-made fish passage barriers (e.g., watercourse crossings and nonhydropower dams) and screen all water diversion structures. 

•	 Replace existing outdated septic systems and improve wastewater management. 

•	 Identify and treat point and non-point source pollution of streams from wastewater, agricultural 

practices, and urban environments. 

•	 Modify channel and flood control maintenance and eliminate artificial breeching of sandbars for 

improvements in channel and estuarine habitats. 

Recovery Priority: 3 

Ranking for CCC steelhead is based on a high degree of threat, a low to moderate recovery potential, and 

anticipated conflict with development projects or other economic activity. A majority of the BRT that 

conducted the 2005 status review of steelhead populations in Washington, Oregon, and California concluded 

that natural populations of CCC steelhead are likely to become endangered. This determination was made 

based on the following factors: (1) the largest run for the DPS (Russian River) has been reduced in size and 

this decline continues, (2) populations in the southern part of the range have declined substantially, and (3) 

habitats are degraded. A low to moderate potential for recovery exists for CCC steelhead due to the large 

amount of urbanization within the range. Imminent land use changes and encroaching urbanization into rural 

areas are anticipated to conflict with the conservation needs of CCC steelhead. 

102 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

South-Central California Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) 

Date Listed: August 18, 1997 (62 FR 43937), reaffirmed January 5, 2006 (71 FR 834) 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: A Recovery Outline was completed in September 2007. A Co-Manager Draft 

Recovery Plan was completed in 2010 and a Final is expected to be completed in 2011. 

Species Status: The steelhead population within the South-Central California Steelhead DPS has declined 

dramatically, from estimated annual runs totaling 25,000 adults in the mid-1960s to less than 500 returning 

adult fish today. Of the 36 watersheds historically supporting steelhead runs, approximately 90 percent 

continue to support them, although run sizes have been sharply reduced in most watersheds. The four largest 

watersheds (Pajaro, Salinas, Nacimiento/Arroyo Seco, and Carmel Rivers) have experienced declines in run 

sizes of 90 percent or more. Present population trends within individual watersheds continuing to support 

runs is generally unknown, but may vary widely between watersheds. The Carmel River is the only major 

system within this DPS with ongoing annual monitoring of adults (Figure 7). 

Figure 7. Recent steelhead runs at the San Clemente Dam fish ladder, at river mile 18.6 on 

the Carmel River. Numbers are incomplete counts, unadjusted for unobserved downstream 

fish and for observation probabilities. 

The CDFG, in cooperation with NMFS, is developing a Coast-Wide Monitoring Plan for Pacific Coast 

Salmonids. Additionally, CDFG has initiated the first steps in deploying advance monitoring technology on 

several of the core watersheds identified in NMFS draft South-Central California Steelhead Recovery Plan. 

Threats and Impacts: The South-Central California Steelhead DPS is near the southern limit of the 

steelhead’s range. There has been extensive loss of populations in most of the major watersheds due to 

agricultural development, urbanization, dewatering, and modification of rivers and creeks. A significant 

portion of the spawning and rearing habitat has been rendered inaccessible as a result of dams and other 

instream structures that block or impede migration. 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 103 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The principal threats to the viability of the South-Central California Steelhead DPS are associated with the 

four major river systems listed above. Each of these watersheds is heavily impacted by water facilities (both 

surface and subsurface) and development of the floodplain and associated riparian corridor (for agricultural, 

residential, and industrial uses, including sand and gravel extraction). Additionally, threats to several of the 

major watersheds in the southern portion of the DPS (Santa Rosa, San Simeon, San Luis Obispo, and Arroyo 

Grande Creeks) impact the viability of this DPS. 

In many of the watersheds, water developments have physically blocked access or impeded migration of adult 

steelhead to headwater spawning and rearing tributaries, as well as restricted the emigration of juveniles to the 

ocean. Development of the floodplains has altered the natural fluvial processes that facilitate migration and in 

some cases sustain over-summering habitat for juvenile steelhead; associated flood control structures and 

activities have further disrupted the natural fluvial processes necessary to maintain these habitats (e.g., Pajaro 

and Salinas Rivers, Santa Luis Obispo, Pismo, and Arroyo Grande Creeks). Legacy effects of limited timber 

harvesting and increased development of residential structures (and associated roads) on steep-sided erosive 

slopes have accelerated erosion and sedimentation of river and stream channels. The continued spread and 

propagation of invasive plants and aquatic species has further degraded habitats for steelhead, particularly 

rearing juveniles. The loss and degradation of remaining estuarine habitat as a result of both point and nonpoint sources of pollution and artificial breaching of sandbars has reduced the suitability of these habitats for 

rearing and acclimation. Finally, the introduction of exotic fish and the stocking of non-native steelhead fish 

stocks to support recreational fishing have also contributed to the decline of native steelhead and related 

resident trout populations in many coastal rivers and streams. 

Conservation Actions: Fish passage facilities have been constructed on the Carmel River at the Los Padres 

Dam with funding from the Carmel River Steelheaders and the CalAm Water Agency. A number of 

impediments to fish passage caused by road crossings and other instream structures have been eliminated or 

substantially improved as a result of retrofitting such structures. Planning for the removal of San Clemente 

Dam in the Carmel River has advanced and completion is pending final design and permitting. Funding for 

this project has been provided by the CalAm Water Agency, California Department of Water Resources, and 

California Coastal Conservancy. Additionally, NMFS staff, in cooperation with the Santa Clara Valley Water 

District and CDFG, successfully negotiated a water release agreement for Uvas Creek, a major spawning and 

rearing tributary to the Pajaro River, one of the core watersheds identified in the Draft Recovery Plan. 

Angling regulations for sport fishing for native steelhead have been changed to regulate recreational angling 

in virtually all coastal rivers and streams in this DPS that are accessible to adult steelhead migrating up from 

the ocean. This recreational fishery is limited to several days a week during the migratory season and is limited 

to catch-and-release. Additionally, CDFG has curtailed its stocking of hatchery-reared trout, limiting 

stockings to reservoirs or stream reaches above impassible barriers. 

Finally, NMFS has conducted both formal and informal section 7 consultations with federal agencies 

throughout the range of this DPS that fund, carry out, or regulate projects such as flood protection, road 

construction, water diversion, and gravel mining. A recent consultation provides for bypass flows and 

monitoring on the Salinas River, the largest river system within the DPS and a core watershed identified in 

the Draft Recovery Plan. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

•	 Further investigate life-history of the species, including utilization of estuarine habitat, juvenile 

growth and smolting patterns, distribution of residualized populations above artificial impassable 

barriers, and the relationship between putative resident and migratory forms of steelhead to refine 

population viability and delisting criteria for this species. 

•	 Re-establish access to upper watersheds in both small coastal streams and several of the larger river 

systems. 

•	 Complete planning and permitting for the removal of San Clemente Dam on the Carmel River. 

104 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

•	 Re-establish adequate flow regimes for the Salinas and Nacimiento Rivers. 

•	 Further investigate potential recovery actions south of San Simeon. 

•	 Establish a robust monitoring system to track population trends, the efficacy of recovery actions, and 

the attainment of viability and delisting criteria. 

Recovery Priority Number: 3 

Ranking is based on a moderate magnitude of threat, a high potential for recovery, and anticipated conflict 

with current and future development/habitat disturbance within the range of the DPS. The BRT that was 

formed to conduct an updated status review in 2005 concluded that the South-Central California Steelhead 

DPS was “currently not in danger of extinction but likely to become so in the foreseeable future.” This 

determination was based in part on “dewatering from irrigation and urban water diversions and habitat 

degradation in the form of logging on steep erosive slopes, agricultural and urban development on 

floodplains and riparian areas, and artificial breaching of estuaries during periods when they are normally 

closed off to the ocean by a sandbar.” An updated 5-year status review is underway, and will be completed 

pending the review of the most recent genetic and ecological information regarding the current boundaries 

between adjacent steelhead DPSs. NMFS believes there is a moderate magnitude of threat in smaller 

watersheds but a higher risk in the four major watersheds, with a high potential of recovery and continued 

conflict with land disturbance and water-associated impacts. 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 105 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Southern California Coast Steelhead DPS (Oncorhynchus mykiss) 

Date Listed: August 18, 1997 (62 FR 43937); 

and Southern Range Extension, May 1, 2002 (50 

CFR Part 224) reaffirmed January 5, 2006 (71 

FR 834) 

Legal Status: Endangered 

Recovery Plan Status: A Recovery Outline 

was completed in September 2007. A Draft 

Recovery Plan has undergone scientific peer 

review, co-manager review, and public review in 

2010, and is being prepared for finalization in 

2011. 

Species Status: The steelhead populations 

within the Southern California Coast Steelhead 

DPS have declined dramatically, from estimated annual runs totaling 55,000 adults in the mid-1960s to mid1990s (estimated from only four of the northernmost watersheds) to less than 500 returning adult fish. 

Populations from over half of the 46 watersheds historically supporting steelhead runs are believed to have 

been extirpated. All of the four largest watersheds in the northern portion of the DPS (Santa Maria, Santa 

Ynez, Ventura, and Santa Clara Rivers) have experienced declines in run sizes of 90 percent or more. 

In the southern range extension (from Malibu to the U.S. Mexico border), adult steelhead have been 

documented in only three watersheds since the original listing of the DPS, although no systematic monitoring 

of steelhead runs has been conducted within these watersheds. Only three of the largest watersheds currently 

have ongoing monitoring programs, and these are relatively new and still under refinement (Figure 8). Present 

population trends within individual watersheds continuing to support runs are unknown but may vary widely 

between watersheds, and are likely fluctuating or declining in a majority of the watersheds within the DPS. 

The CDFG, in cooperation with NMFS, is in the process of developing a Coast-Wide Monitoring Plan for 

Pacific Coast Salmonids. Additionally, the CDFG has initiated the first steps in deploying advance monitoring 

technology on several of the core watersheds identified in NMFS draft Southern California Steelhead 

Recovery Plan. 

Threats and Impacts: The Southern California Coast Steelhead DPS is at the extreme southern limit of the 

steelhead range. The principal threats to the viability of the Southern California Steelhead DPS are common 

to all four of the major river systems in the northern portion of the DPS (listed above). Each of these 

watersheds is heavily impacted by water facilities (both surface and subsurface) and development of the 

floodplain and associated riparian corridor (for agricultural, residential, and some industrial uses, including 

sand and gravel extraction). There has been extensive loss of populations, especially south of Malibu Creek, 

due to urbanization, dewatering, and channelization of rivers and creeks. Threats to several of the major 

watersheds in the southern portion of the DPS (San Gabriel, Santa Ana, San Juan, Santa Margarita, San Luis 

Rey, and Sweetwater Rivers) also affect the viability of this DPS. 

A large majority of the spawning and rearing habitat in the major river systems has been rendered inaccessible 

as a result of dams, debris basins, road crossings, and other instream structures. These structures block or 

impede migration of adult steelhead to prime historic headwater spawning and rearing tributaries, and restrict 

the emigration of juveniles to the ocean. Development on the floodplains has altered the natural fluvial 

processes that facilitate migration and in some cases sustain over-summering habitat for juvenile steelhead; 

associated flood control structures and activities have further disrupted the natural fluvial processes necessary 

106 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

to maintain these habitats. Increased development of residential structures (and associated roads) on steepsided erosive slopes has accelerated erosion and sedimentation of river and stream channels and of remaining 

estuarine habitat. 

Figure 8. Anadromous O. mykiss observed in the Santa Ynez River system by the staff of the 

Cachuma Conservation and Release Board; and at the fish-passage facility on the Vern Freeman 

Diversion Dam on the Santa Clara River by the staff of the United Water Conservation District. 

Numbers are incomplete counts, unadjusted for observation probabilities. 

The continued spread and propagation of invasive plants and aquatic species has further degraded habitats 

for steelhead, particularly rearing juveniles. Southern California has also lost approximately 90 percent of its 

pre-historic estuarine habitat through dredging and filling. The degradation of remaining estuarine habitat as a 

result of both point and non-point sources of pollution and artificial breaching of sandbars has reduced the 

suitability of these habitats for rearing and acclimation. Finally, the introduction of exotic fish, and the 

stocking of non-native steelhead fish stocks to support recreational fishing, have also contributed to the 

decline of native steelhead and related resident trout populations in many coastal rivers and streams (although 

the latter practice has declined and in some cases has been eliminated). 

Conservation Actions: Inventories of impediments have been conducted on major watersheds (Santa 

Maria/Sisquoc, Santa Ynez, Santa Ynez Mountains complex, Ventura, Santa Clara, and Santa Monica 

Mountains complex, San Juan/Arroyo, San Luis Rey). Fish passage facilities have been constructed on 

Salsipuedes Creek (Santa Ynez River); San Ysidro Creek (Santa Ynez Mountains) and a number of smaller 

watersheds along the Conception Coast; Ventura River at the Robles Diversion Dam; Santa Paula Creek at 

the Harvey Dam; and Santa Paula Creek Flood Control Channel. Additional fish passage projects are in the 

planning stages along the Conception Coast, and the Santa Monica Mountains and within the southern range 

extension. A number of impediments to fish passage caused by road crossings and other instream structures 

have been eliminated or substantially improved as a result of retrofitting such structures (i.e., Horse Creek on 

the Sisquoc River). Planning for the removal of Matilija Dam in the Ventura River watershed has advanced 

substantially and planning has commenced on the removal of Rindge Dam on Malibu Creek. Funding for 

these two major dam removal projects has been provided by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Department of Justice, the California Coastal Conservancy, and the local dam 

owners, but is currently inadequate to complete the projects because of reduced federal funding. 

Angling regulations for sport fishing for native steelhead have been changed to eliminate recreational angling 

in virtually all coastal rivers and streams in the DPS that are accessible to adult steelhead migrating from the 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 107 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ocean. Additionally, the CDFG has curtailed its stocking of hatchery-reared trout, limiting stockings to 

reservoirs or stream reaches above impassible barriers, although private entities continue to stock reservoirs 

in anadromous watersheds with non-native fishes. In at least one case CDFG has begun stocking sterile 

(triploid) fish to prevent the interbreeding of hatchery-reared fish with native steelhead. 

NMFS has issued two Biological Opinions regarding fish passage and migration flows: for Santa Felicia Dam 

on Piru Creek (a tributary to the Santa Clara River) and for the Vern Freeman Diversion on the Santa Clara 

River. Additionally, NMFS has participated in the Public Trust/Water Right hearings held by the California 

State Water Resources Control Board on the re-licensing of the Cachuma Dam project on the Santa Ynez 

River, and has re-initiated consultation of the Cachuma project to address new information on the effects of 

the project on listed species. NMFS has also conducted both formal and informal section 7 consultations 

with federal agencies throughout the DPS that fund, carry out, or regulate projects such as flood protection, 

road construction, water diversion, bridge replacements, and gravel mining operations. 

A number of fishery investigations and habitat improvement planning projects have been initiated: these 

include a habitat and fish population survey of Topanga Creek, a preliminary estuarine restoration plan for 

the Santa Ynez River Estuary, and an instream flow study for the Santa Maria River. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

•	 Investigate life-history of the species, including use of estuarine habitat, juvenile growth and smolting 

patterns, distribution of residualized populations above artificial impassable barriers, and the 

relationship between putative resident and migratory forms of steelhead to refine population viability 

and delisting criteria for this species. 

•	 Re-establish access to upper watersheds in both small coastal streams and several of the larger river 

systems within each biogeographic region. 

•	 Complete planning for the removal of Matilija Dam on the Ventura River and Rindge Dam on 

Malibu Creek. 

•	 Re-establish adequate flow regimes (and in some instances fish passage facilities) for the Santa Maria, 

Santa Ynez, Ventura, Santa Clara, Santa Margarita, and San Luis Rey Rivers. 

•	 Further investigate potential recovery actions south of Malibu Creek (within the southern range 

extension), including watershed barrier inventories, habitat suitability assessments, and 

metapopulation dynamics between the larger river systems and short-run coastal streams. 

•	 Establish a robust monitoring system to track population trends, the efficacy of recovery actions, and 

the attainment of viability and delisting criteria. 

Recovery Priority Number: 3 

Ranking is based on a high magnitude of threat, a moderate potential for recovery, and anticipated conflict 

with current and future development/disturbance within the range of the DPS. The BRT that was formed to 

conduct an updated status review in 2005 reiterated the conclusions reached in the previous status review: 

that the Southern California Steelhead DPS “was in danger of extinction.” This determination was based in 

part on the extirpation of populations through much of their historical range, and the blockage and 

degradation of freshwater habitats. NMFS believes there is a moderate magnitude of threat in smaller 

watersheds but a higher risk in the major watersheds, with a high potential of recovery and continued conflict 

with land disturbance and water-associated impacts. An updated 5-year status review is underway, and will be 

completed pending the review of the most recent genetic and ecological information regarding the current 

boundaries between adjacent steelhead DPSs. NMFS believes there is a moderate magnitude of threat in 

smaller watersheds but a higher risk in the four major watersheds, with a high potential of recovery and 

continued conflict with land disturbance and water-associated impacts. 

108 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sacramento River Winter-run Chinook Salmon ESU 

(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) 

Date Listed: November 5, 1990 (55 FR 46515); reclassified January 4, 1994 (59 FR 440); classification 

reaffirmed June 28, 2005 (70 FR 37160) 

Legal Status: Endangered (reclassified from original threatened listing) 

Recovery Plan Status: A draft multi-species recovery plan for steelhead, winter-run Chinook salmon, and 

spring-run Chinook salmon was released for public review in October 2009, and a final recovery plan is 

expected by the fall of 2011. 

Species Status: The Central Valley TRT delineated four historical independent populations of Sacramento 

River winter-run Chinook salmon. The spawning areas of three of these historical populations are upstream 

of the impassable Keswick and Shasta Dams, while Battle Creek (location of the fourth population) is 

presently unsuitable for winter-run Chinook salmon due to high summer water temperatures. The 

Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon ESU is composed of one population spawning in the 

mainstem Sacramento River downstream of Keswick Dam. This population is supplemented with fish from 

the Livingston Stone National Fish Hatchery. 

The TRT applied winter-run Chinook salmon data through 2004 to viability criteria developed for Central 

Valley salmonids and found that the mainstem Sacramento River population was at low risk of extinction. 

The ESU as a whole, however, is at high risk of extinction because there is only one naturally spawning 

population, and it is not within its historical range. An emerging concern was rising levels of hatchery-origin 

fish spawning in natural areas, although the duration and extent of this introgression was still consistent with 

a low extinction risk as of 2004. 

The status of Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon is little changed since 2004, and new information 

does not appear to suggest a change in extinction risk. The Sacramento River population did increase in 

abundance in the first half of the decade, but these increases have reversed during the more recent period of 

unfavorable ocean conditions (2005–2006) and drought (2007–2009) (Figure 9). 

Threats and Impacts: The greatest ongoing threat and impact to this ESU is the presence of Keswick and 

Shasta Dams, which block winter-run Chinook salmon from reaching three of the four tributaries that 

historically supported the ESU (Little Sacramento, McCloud, and Pit Rivers). Battle Creek no longer 

supports winter-run Chinook salmon due to hydropower dams, diversions, and warm water temperatures. In 

addition to the threats posed by dams on the Sacramento River and Battle Creek, other major threats to the 

Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon ESU include: (1) the ESU has only one naturally spawning 

population, which makes the species vulnerable to drought or other catastrophic events; (2) habitat loss and 

degradation caused by agricultural, urban, and industrial land use practices; (3) poor ocean conditions; (4) 

bycatch in the ocean salmon fishery; (5) predation; and (6) climate change. Of particular note is the poor 

survival of juvenile Chinook salmon as they rear in and migrate through the Sacramento River and Delta. 

Factors contributing to this poor survival include altered flow patterns and timing, inadequately screened or 

unscreened water diversions, lack of floodplain and riparian habitat, lack of habitat complexity, water 

pollution, and predation by striped bass. 

Winter-run Chinook salmon that survive to reach adult size despite the plethora of adverse factors facing 

them as juveniles are then exposed to an ocean salmon fishery targeting fall-run Chinook salmon that, when 

open, typically harvests approximately 20 percent of the winter-run Chinook salmon adults as bycatch. 

However, the ocean salmon fishery has not been typical recently and has had little to no impact on winter-run 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 109 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Chinook salmon from 2008–2010, as the fishery has been closed (2008 and 2009) or severely restricted (2010) 

during that time due to a collapse in the abundance of fall-run Chinook salmon. 

0 

20,000 

40,000 

60,000 

80,000 

100,000 

120,000 

140,000 

196719691971197319751977

197919811983

1985198719891991199319951997

199920012003

200520072009 

1967-1995 data 

based on RBDD 

counts 

1996- data based 

on carcass surveys 

Figure 9. Estimated abundance of adult winter-run Chinook salmon returning to spawn in the Sacramento 

River. RBDD = Red Bluff Diversion Dam. 

Conservation Actions: During 2008–2010, progress was made toward addressing some of the limiting 

factors and threats to the Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon ESU, largely through ESA 

consultations and other ESA-related conservation efforts in the Central Valley, including the Ecosystem 

Restoration Program and the Central Valley Project Improvement Act’s Anadromous Fish Restoration 

Program (AFRP) (see Box 1 on page 129). 

Actions required by the Biological Opinion on the long-term operations of the Central Valley Project and State Water Project: 

In June 2009, NMFS issued a biological opinion containing mandatory actions intended to avoid jeopardy to 

anadromous fish and to avoid destruction of critical habitat resulting from the long-term operations of the 

Central Valley Project (CVP) and State Water Project (SWP). Actions in the CVP/SWP biological opinion 

intended to improve conditions for winter-run Chinook salmon include: 

•	 Modifying gate operations at Red Bluff Diversion Dam so the gates are out from September 1 

through June 14; this action should improve passage for adults migrating to their spawning grounds 

as well as the survival of juveniles moving downstream [underway]. By May 2012, the dam must be 

operated with the gates out year-round. 

•	 Implementing Keswick Dam release schedules and procedures designed to provide more suitable 

water temperatures for holding and spawning [underway]. 

•	 Providing significantly increased acreage of seasonally inundated floodplain habitat to improve 

juvenile rearing in the lower Sacramento River basin[underway]. 

•	 Providing funding to help complete the Battle Creek Salmon and Steelhead Restoration Project 

(project is briefly describe below) [underway]. 

•	 Providing funding to support the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) Anadromous 

Fish Screen Program [underway]. 

•	 Implementing multiple actions to improve flow and habitat conditions in the Delta [underway]. 

110 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In addition to the above-listed habitat improvement actions, the CVP/SWP biological opinion includes a 

phased fish passage program intended to expand habitat for winter-run Chinook salmon to areas upstream of 

Shasta Dam on the Sacramento River. In 2010, a fish passage steering committee initiated planning efforts 

and habitat evaluations were conducted. 

Battle Creek Salmon and Steelhead Restoration Project: The Battle Creek Salmon and Steelhead Restoration Project 

will eventually remove five dams on Battle Creek, install fish screens and ladders on three dams, and end the 

diversion of water from the North Fork to the South Fork. When the project is completed, a total of 42 miles 

of mainstem habitat and six miles of tributary habitat will be opened up to anadromous salmonids. 

Bay-Delta Conservation Plan: The purpose of the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) is to help recover 

endangered and sensitive species and their habitats in the Delta in a way that also will provide for a reliable 

water supply. A proposed BDCP water conveyance system would include new points of diversion in the 

north Delta in concert with improvements to the current through-Delta water export system in the south 

Delta. Actions under discussion include operation of a dual conveyance system, habitat restoration, and 

measures to reduce other stressors to the Delta ecosystem and covered species. The BDCP is in a 

developmental stage, its implementation is uncertain, and any new benefits or threats to winter-run Chinook 

salmon resulting from the plan would not occur for many years. If successful in meeting its purposes, the 

BDCP could be a significant conservation action for Central Valley salmon and steelhead. 

Other ongoing conservation actions: As previously mentioned, the sport and commercial salmon fisheries in the 

ocean were closed in 2008 and 2009 and severely restricted in 2010. In addition, the State’s inland sport 

fishery regulations continue to be protective of winter-run Chinook salmon. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

•	 Establish additional populations through habitat expansion and restoration in Battle Creek and the 

McCloud River. 

•	 Develop alternative water operations and conveyance systems, and restore Bay-Delta habitat and 

ecological flow characteristics to provide multiple and suitable salmonid rearing and migratory 

habitats for all Central Valley salmonids. 

•	 Implement the Battle Creek Salmon and Steelhead Restoration Project. 

•	 Reduce state-wide urban water use by 20 percent per capita by 2020, to help provide ecologically 

based flows in the Sacramento River and Bay-Delta. 

•	 Restore the ecological health of the Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta and lower Sacramento 

River through significant changes in water, levee, and floodplain management, and by reducing the 

abundance of non-native predatory fish. 

•	 Continue to fund and implement the Ecosystem Restoration Program and the Anadromous Fish 

Restoration Program to continue habitat restoration efforts, screening of diversions, flow and 

temperature monitoring, status and trends research monitoring, modification of structures to 

improve fish passage, and overall water quality improvements. 

•	 Reduce the amount of winter-run Chinook salmon harvested in the commercial and recreational 

ocean salmon fishery. 

Recovery Priority Number: 3 

The recovery priority number for the Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon ESU is based on a high 

magnitude of threat due to a single extant population vulnerable to loss of genetic diversity, low abundance, 

unscreened diversions, high water temperatures, and effects of drought. The recovery potential is low to 

moderate due to the lack of additional populations, lack of available/suitable habitat (cold water), unscreened 

diversions/passage problems, and inadequate instream flow. Conflict was determined to be present due to 

anticipated future development, habitat degradation issues, and increasing demands for Central Valley water 

supplies. 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 111 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Central Valley Spring-run Chinook Salmon ESU (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) 

Date Listed: September 16, 1999 

(64 FR 50394), classification 

reaffirmed June 28, 2005 (70 FR 

37160) 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: A draft 

multi-species recovery plan for 

steelhead, winter-run Chinook 

salmon, and spring-run Chinook 

salmon was released for public review 

in October 2009, and a final recovery 

plan is expected by the fall of 2011. 

Species Status: The Central Valley 

TRT delineated 18 or 19 independent 

populations of spring-run Chinook 

salmon, along with a number of smaller dependent populations and four diversity groups. Of these 18 or 19 

populations, only three are extant (Mill, Deer, and Butte Creeks) and they represent only the Northern Sierra 

Nevada diversity group. The three extant populations passed through prolonged periods of low abundance 

before increasing in abundance moderately (Mill, Deer Creek) or robustly (Butte Creek) in the 1990s (Figure 

10). In addition to Mill, Deer, and Butte Creeks, dependent populations of spring-run Chinook salmon 

continue to occur in Antelope, Battle, Big Chico, Clear, Cottonwood (Beegum), and Thomes Creeks, and in 

the mainstem Sacramento River, the Feather River, and the Yuba River. 

The status of the Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon ESU has probably deteriorated since 2005, when 

the last status review was conducted. Improvements, evident in the status of two populations (Battle and 

Clear Creeks), are not enough to warrant a downgrading of the ESU extinction risk. The degradation in status 

of the three formerly low- or moderate-risk independent populations (Mill, Deer, and Butte Creeks) is cause 

for concern. Overall, new information available since 2005 indicates an increased extinction risk for Central 

Valley spring-run Chinook salmon. 

Threats and Impacts: The greatest ongoing threat and impact to this ESU is the presence of large dams, 

which block spring-run Chinook salmon from nearly all of their historic spawning habitat. In addition to 

habitat loss caused by dams, other major threats to the ESU include: (1) all three extant populations are in 

close proximity, which makes the species vulnerable to drought, fire, or other catastrophic events; (2) habitat 

loss and degradation caused by agricultural, urban, and industrial land use practices; (3) poor ocean 

conditions; (4) bycatch in the ocean salmon fishery; (5) adverse impacts to spring-run Chinook salmon 

genetics resulting from the Feather River Hatchery; (6) predation; and (7) climate change. Of particular note is 

the poor survival of juvenile Chinook salmon as they rear in and migrate through the Sacramento River and 

Delta. Factors contributing to this poor survival include altered flow patterns and timing, inadequately 

screened or unscreened water diversions, lack of floodplain and riparian habitat, lack of habitat complexity, 

water pollution, and predation by striped bass. 

Photo credit: Ralph Cutter 

112 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 10. Time series of escapement for Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon populations. Y axis is in thousands 

of fish. 

Conservation Actions: Several conservation actions that help the Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon 

ESU were taken from 2008–2010. Those actions were largely the result of ESA consultations and other ESArelated conservation efforts in the Central Valley, including the Ecosystem Restoration Program and the 

Central Valley Project Improvement Act’s Anadromous Fish Restoration Program (AFRP) (see Box 1). 

Actions required by the Biological Opinion on the long-term operations of the Central Valley Project and State Water Project: 

The CVP/SWP biological opinion contains mandatory actions intended to avoid jeopardy to anadromous 

fish and destruction of critical habitat resulting from the long-term operations of those projects. Actions in 

the CVP/SWP biological opinion intended to improve spring-run Chinook salmon habitat include: 

•	 Implementing multiple actions on Clear Creek to provide more suitable flows and water 

temperatures, and increase the availability of spawning habitat through gravel additions [underway]. 

•	 Implementing Keswick Dam release schedules and procedures designed to provide more suitable 

water temperatures for holding and spawning [underway]. 

•	 Modifying gate operations at Red Bluff Diversion Dam so the gates are out from September 1 

through June 14 to improve upstream migration for adults as well as downstream survival of 

juveniles [underway]; by May 2012 the dam must be operated with the gates out year-round. 

•	 Providing funding to help complete the Battle Creek Restoration Project (project is briefly describe 

below) [underway]. 

•	 Providing funding to support the CVPIA Anadromous Fish Screen Program [underway]. 

•	 Providing significantly increased acreage of seasonally inundated floodplain habitat to improve 

juvenile rearing in the lower Sacramento River basin [underway]. 

•	 Implementing multiple actions to improve flow and habitat conditions in the Delta [underway]. 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 113 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In addition to the above-listed habitat 

improvement actions, the CVP/SWP 

biological opinion includes a phased fish 

passage program intended to expand 

habitat for spring-run Chinook salmon to 

areas upstream of Shasta Dam on the 

Sacramento River. In 2010, a fish passage 

steering committee initiated planning 

efforts and habitat evaluations were 

conducted. 

Battle Creek Salmon and Steelhead Restoration 

Project: The Battle Creek Salmon and 

Steelhead Restoration Project will 

eventually remove five dams on Battle 

Creek, install fish screens and ladders on 

three dams, and end the diversion of water 

from the North Fork to the South Fork. 

When the project is completed, a total of 

42 miles of mainstem habitat and 6 miles of 

tributary habitat will be opened up to 

anadromous salmonids. 

San Joaquin River Restoration Program (SJRRP): 

The SJRRP calls for a combination of 

channel and structural modifications along 

the San Joaquin River below Friant Dam, 

releases of water from Friant Dam to the 

confluence of the Merced River, and the reintroduction of spring-run Chinook salmon. The first flow releases 

from Friant Dam in support of the SJRRP occurred in October 2009. 

Bay-Delta Conservation Plan: The purpose of the BDCP is to help recover endangered and sensitive species and 

their habitats in the Delta in a way that also will provide for a reliable water supply. The BDCP is in a 

developmental stage, its implementation is uncertain, and any new benefits or threats to spring-run Chinook 

salmon resulting from the plan would not occur for many years. Although implementation of the BDCP is 

uncertain, the plan is mentioned in this biennial report because, in recent years, a substantial amount of effort 

from management agencies and water user groups has been directed towards its development. If successful in 

meeting its purposes, the BDCP could be a significant conservation action for Central Valley salmon and 

steelhead. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

•	 Conduct a Central Valley-wide assessment of keystone dams and passage opportunities and 

implement programs to restore access to high elevation habitat that spring-run Chinook salmon 

historically depended on for their persistence. Priority areas for reintroductions include the McCloud 

River, Battle Creek, the Yuba River upstream of Englebright Dam, and the San Joaquin River. 

•	 Develop alternative water operations and conveyance systems, and restore Bay-Delta habitat and 

ecological flow characteristics to provide multiple and suitable salmonid rearing and migratory 

habitats for all Central Valley salmonids. 

•	 Modify diversion structures and utilize groundwater in Antelope, Butte, Deer, and Mill Creeks to 

allow unimpeded upstream and downstream fish passage and to provide increased instream flows. 

•	 Implement the Battle Creek Salmon and Steelhead Restoration Project. 

•	 Continue implementation of the San Joaquin River Restoration Program. 

Box 1. Central Valley Conservation Programs 

Two large, ongoing conservation programs in the Central Valley 

provide a wide range of ecosystem and species-specific protective 

efforts benefiting anadromous fish; the Ecosystem Restoration 

Program, and the CVPIA AFRP. The Ecosystem Restoration 

Program is designed to restore the ecological health of the BayDelta ecosystem, and supports the objective of improving water 

management for beneficial uses of the Bay-Delta system. From 

2000-2010, the Ecosystem Restoration Program has contributed 

$708 million to projects involving habitat restoration, floodplain 

restoration and protection, instream and riparian habitat restoration 

and protection, fish screening and passage, research on non-native 

species and contaminants, research and monitoring of fishery 

resources, and watershed stewardship and outreach. 

The CVPIA’s AFRP balances the priorities of fish and wildlife 

protection, restoration, and mitigation with irrigation, domestic water 

use, fish and wildlife enhancement, and power augmentation. 

Approximately $15 million of CVPIA funds are provided annually for 

the purpose of protecting, restoring, and enhancing special-status 

species and their habitats in areas directly or indirectly affected by 

the Central Valley Project. The Bureau of Reclamation and FWS 

have conducted studies and implemented hundreds of actions, 

including modifications of Central Valley Project operations, 

management and acquisition of water for fish and wildlife needs, 

flow management for fish migration and passage, increased water 

flows, replenishment of spawning gravels, restoration of riparian 

habitats, and screening of water diversions. Actions in the 

Sacramento River tributaries have focused on riparian and shaded 

riverine aquatic habitat restoration, improved access to available 

upstream habitat, improved instream flows, and reduced loss of 

juveniles at diversions. 

114 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

•	 Reduce state-wide urban water use by 20 percent per capita by 2020, to help provide ecologically 

based flows in the Sacramento River and Bay-Delta. 

•	 Restore the ecological health of the Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta and lower Sacramento 

River through significant changes in water, levee, and floodplain management, and by reducing the 

abundance of non-native predatory fish. 

•	 Reduce the amount of spring-run Chinook salmon harvested in the commercial and recreational 

ocean salmon fishery. 

•	 Finalize and implement the genetics management plan for the Feather River Hatchery; and 

implement the Feather River Oroville Hydroelectric Facility’s Fish Habitat Management Plan to 

reduce the interaction between hatchery and wild fish and between spring-run Chinook salmon and 

fall-run Chinook salmon in the Feather River. 

Recovery Priority Number: 7 

The recovery priority number for the Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon ESU was based on a 

moderate magnitude of threat, due to only three remaining extant natural populations with consistent 

spawning that are in close geographic proximity; the lack of cool water habitat below impassable dams; and 

the threat to genetic integrity from the Feather River Hatchery. The recovery potential is low to moderate due 

to lack of suitable habitat (cold water, high elevation) below impassable barriers, and the low number (three) 

of extant natural populations. Conflict was determined to exist due to anticipated future development, habitat 

degradation issues, and increasing demands for Central Valley water supplies. 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 115 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

California Central Valley Steelhead DPS (Oncorhynchus mykiss) 

Date Listed: March 19, 1998 (63 FR 13347), reaffirmed January 5, 2006 (71 FR 834) 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: A draft multi-species recovery plan for steelhead, winter-run Chinook salmon, and 

spring-run Chinook salmon was released for public review in October 2009, and a final recovery plan is 

expected by the fall of 2011. 

Species Status: The Central Valley TRT identified 81 independent populations of steelhead in the Central 

Valley. It is estimated that more than 95 percent of historical spawning habitat is now inaccessible to this DPS 

because of the presence of dams on most river systems in the Central Valley. As a result of this lost habitat, 

most of the 81 independent populations have been extirpated. 

The abundance of adult steelhead migrating up the Sacramento River declined dramatically from the late 

1960s through the early 1990s, as indicated by direct counts of steelhead passing the Red Bluff Diversion 

Dam. It is estimated that an average of 20,540 adult steelhead occurred in the Sacramento River, upstream of 

the Feather River through the 1960s. Steelhead declined from an average f about 8,000 fish for the period Photoo credit: J. D. Richey 

1967–1977, to an average of approximately 2,000 through the early 1990s, with an estimated total annual run 

size for the entire Sacramento–San Joaquin system to be no more than 10,000 adults. These estimates of 

steelhead abundance ended in 1993 due to changes in operations at the Red Bluff Diversion Dam that 

affected the counting facilities. More recently, steelhead smolt catches in trawls at Chipps Island are used as 

an indicator of steelhead abundance. 

The Chipps Island midwater trawl dataset of the FWS provides information on the trend in abundance for 

the Central Valley steelhead DPS as a whole. Updated through 2010, the trawl data indicate that the decline in 

natural production of steelhead has continued unabated since the mid-1990s. 

The status of Central Valley steelhead appears to have worsened since a 2005 status review was conducted, 

when the BRT concluded the DPS was in danger of extinction. New information available since the 2005 

status review indicates that the Central Valley steelhead DPS is at an increased extinction risk. 

Threats and Impacts: Many stressors and threats are contributing to the decline of Central Valley 

steelhead, including dams, water diversions, levee construction and management, water quality, predation by 

non-native fish, and hatchery management. The primary limiting factor to the Central Valley steelhead DPS is 

the inaccessibility of more than 95 percent of its historic spawning and initial rearing habitat. A lack of 

adequate information on the distribution and abundance of Central Valley steelhead limits our understanding 

of the viability of this DPS. Equally important is the need to better understand the relationship of resident 

and anadromous forms of O. mykiss, and how that relationship impacts the persistence of anadromous O. 

mykiss. 

Conservation Actions: During 2008–2010, progress was made toward addressing some of the limiting 

factors and threats to this DPS, largely through ESA consultations and other ESA-related conservation 

efforts in the Central Valley, including the Ecosystem Restoration Program and the Central Valley Project 

Improvement Act’s Anadromous Fish Restoration Program (AFRP) (Box 1 on page 129). 

Actions required by the Biological Opinion on the long-term operations of the Central Valley Project and State Water Project: 

In June 2009, NMFS issued a biological opinion containing mandatory actions that are intended to avoid 

jeopardy to listed anadromous fish, and avoid destruction of critical habitat, resulting from the long-term 

operations of the CVP and SWP. Actions in the CVP/SWP biological opinion intended to improve 

conditions for steelhead include: 

116 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

•	 Implementing multiple actions on Clear Creek to provide more suitable flows and water
 

temperatures, and to increase the availability of spawning habitat through gravel additions
 

[underway].
 

•	 Modifying gate operations at Red Bluff Diversion Dam so that the gates are out from September 1 

through June 14; this action should improve downstream survival of steelhead smolts [underway]. By 

May 2012, the dam must be operated with the gates out year-round. 

•	 Providing funding to help complete the Battle Creek Salmon and Steelhead Restoration Project 

(project is briefly describe below) [underway]. 

•	 Providing funding to support the CVPIA Anadromous Fish Screen Program [underway]. 

•	 Implementing multiple actions to improve flow and habitat conditions for steelhead in the American 

River, Stanislaus River, and Delta, including actions to protect smolts from the San Joaquin River 

[underway]. 

•	 Completing a hatchery genetics management plan for the Nimbus Hatchery steelhead program. 

•	 Participating in the design, implementation, and funding of the comprehensive Central Valley 

steelhead monitoring plan (see ongoing measures below for more detail). 

In addition to the above-listed habitat improvement actions, the CVP/SWP biological opinion includes a 

phased fish passage program intended to expand habitat for steelhead to areas upstream of Shasta Dam on 

the Sacramento River and Folsom Dam on the American River. The fish passage program also calls for 

evaluations of fish passage upstream of New Melones Dam on the Stanislaus River. In 2010, a fish passage 

steering committee initiated planning efforts and habitat evaluations were conducted. 

Battle Creek Salmon and Steelhead Restoration Project: The Battle Creek Salmon and Steelhead Restoration Project 

will eventually remove five dams on Battle Creek, install fish screens and ladders on three dams, and end the 

diversion of water from the North Fork to the South Fork. When the project is completed, a total of 42 miles 

of mainstem habitat and six miles of tributary habitat will be opened up to anadromous salmonids. 

Bay-Delta Conservation Plan: The purpose of the BDCP is to help recover endangered and sensitive species and 

their habitats in the Delta in a way that also will provide for a reliable water supply. The BDCP is in a 

developmental stage, its implementation is uncertain, and any new benefits or threats to steelhead resulting 

from the plan would not occur for many years. If successful in meeting its purposes, the BDCP could be a 

significant conservation action for Central Valley salmon and steelhead. 

Other ongoing conservation actions: Ongoing measures to protect steelhead in California include 100 percent 

marking of all hatchery steelhead, zero bag limits for unmarked steelhead, gear restrictions, closures, and size 

limits designed to protect smolts. 

CDFG—with the technical and scientific support of the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, NMFS, 

and FWS—is preparing a comprehensive Central Valley Steelhead Monitoring Plan. The goal of this project is 

to develop a comprehensive monitoring plan for Central Valley steelhead, that, when implemented, will 

provide fishery managers the data necessary to assess steelhead population abundance and distribution. This 

information is necessary as part of an overall strategy to ensure steelhead conservation and is critical to 

moving forward on numerous management and recovery efforts. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

•	 Develop alternative water operations and conveyance systems, and restore Bay-Delta habitat and 

ecological flow characteristics to provide multiple and suitable salmonid rearing and migratory 

habitats for all Central Valley salmonids. 

•	 Conduct a Central Valley–wide assessment of keystone dams and passage opportunities and 

implement programs to restore access to high-elevation habitat that steelhead historically depended 

on for their persistence. Priority areas for steelhead re-introductions include the McCloud River, 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 117 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Battle Creek, the Yuba River upstream of Englebright Dam, the American River upstream of Folsom 

Dam, and the San Joaquin River. 

•	 Implement the Battle Creek Salmon and Steelhead Restoration Project. 

•	 Restore the ecological health of the Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta and lower Sacramento 

River through significant changes in water, levee, and floodplain management, and by reducing the 

abundance of non-native predatory fish. 

•	 Implement the comprehensive Central Valley Steelhead Monitoring Plan. 

•	 Reduce state-wide urban water use by 20 percent per capita by 2020, to help provide ecologically 

based flows in the Sacramento and San Joaquin basins and Bay-Delta. 

•	 Conduct a science-based review of Central Valley steelhead hatcheries and implement actions 

identified in that review that would benefit wild steelhead or at least minimize adverse hatchery 

impacts. 

•	 Continue to fund and implement the Ecosystem Restoration Program and the Anadromous Fish 

Restoration Program to continue habitat restoration efforts, screening of diversions, flow and 

temperature monitoring, status and trends research monitoring, modification of structures to 

improve fish passage, and overall water quality improvements. 

Recovery Priority Number: 7 

The recovery priority number for the Central Valley steelhead DPS was derived from a moderate magnitude 

of threat, because more than 95 percent of historic spawning habitat is inaccessible due to impassable dams. 

The recovery potential was determined to be low to moderate due to a lack of suitable habitat below 

impassable barriers, inadequate abundance and distribution data to assess DPS viability, and the widespread 

stocking of hatchery fish (which could negatively impact wild steelhead populations). The potential for 

conflict exists because of anticipated future development and habitat degradation issues, as well as increasing 

demands for Central Valley water supplies and climate change impacts. 

118 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ATLANTIC SALMON RECOVERY 

Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar) – Gulf of Maine DPS 

Date Listed: November 17, 2000 

and revised on June 19, 2009; listed 

jointly by NMFS and FWS 

Legal Status: Endangered 

Recovery Plan Status: The Final 

Recovery Plan published in 

November 2005 by NMFS and FWS 

is not inclusive of all populations and 

is being updated. In 2009, the FWS 

took the lead in developing a new 

recovery plan to accommodate the 

2009 listing revision and critical 

habitat designation. A draft of the 

plan will be reviewed internally with 

an anticipated goal of publishing a 

draft in the Federal Register in 2011 

followed by a 90-day public comment period. A final recovery plan for the Gulf of Maine DPS (GOM DPS) 

of Atlantic salmon is expected to be completed 1 year after the publication of the draft. 

Species Status: A final rule published on June 19, 2009 (74 FR 29344) expanded an endangered status under 

the ESA to all anadromous Atlantic salmon whose freshwater range occurs in the watersheds from the 

Androscoggin River northward along the Maine coast to the Dennys River, an area that includes the 

Penobscot and Kennebec Rivers. The protections of the ESA also apply wherever these fish occur, whether 

in rivers, estuaries, or the marine environment. Hatchery fish used to supplement these natural populations 

are also included under this listing. As an endangered species, the GOM DPS of Atlantic salmon receives the 

full protection of the ESA, including a prohibition against take (take is defined to include harass, harm, 

pursue, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect). Abundance levels of the GOM DPS of Atlantic salmon are at 

very low levels. Based on data from adult returns at salmon traps on the Androscoggin, Kennebec, 

Penobscot, Narraguagus, and Dennys Rivers, and counts of spawning salmon, adult returns in 2009 were 

estimated at 1,918 hatchery-origin salmon, and 251 natural origin (USASC 2010). 

Threats and Impacts: The three most influential stressors negatively affecting the persistence GOM DPS 

of Atlantic salmon identified in the proposed listing rule (73 CFR 51747–51781) are: (1) dams and their interrelated effects on freshwater salmon habitat, (2) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms for dams, 

and (3) low marine survival. Dams result in the following impacts to Atlantic salmon: (1) directly limit access 

to otherwise suitable habitat; (2) directly kill and injure a significant number of salmon during both upstream 

and downstream migration; and (3) degrade the productive capacity of habitats upstream by inundating 

formerly free-flowing rivers, reducing water quality, and changing fish communities. Dams affect multiple life 

stages in multiple ways, particularly by preventing or impeding access to spawning habitat for returning adult 

salmon; impacts at this late life stage have the greatest demographic effect. 

Marine survival has also been implicated as a significant factor threatening the continued survival and 

recovery of Atlantic salmon. From a demographic viewpoint, incremental increases in marine survival have a 

much greater impact on the population than do increases in freshwater survival, although increases in marine 

survival may be more difficult to achieve. It is important to note that marine survival is calculated from the 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 119 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

last time smolts are counted in a river until adults return to spawn. Thus, marine survival estimates may 

include some portion of freshwater, estuarine, and nearshore mortality in addition to open ocean mortality. 

The historical range of freshwater survival for U.S. populations is estimated to be approximately 0.13 to 6.09 

percent (Legault 2005). These estimates are based on numerous studies on different life stages of the 

freshwater phase across a wide spatial and temporal scale. Current marine survival (smolt to adult) for U.S. 

populations is estimated to range from 0.09 to 1.02 percent based on total smolt cohort return rates for the 

Penobscot (hatchery smolt returns, 1995 to 2004) and Narraguagus Rivers (naturally reared smolt returns, 

1997 to 2004; ICES 2008). For the reasons mentioned above, marine survival estimates of hatchery smolts in 

the Penobscot also include dam-related mortality. Improvements in these survival rates are necessary to reach 

the point where each fish is replacing itself and to eventually result in population growth toward recovery. 

Increases in freshwater survival will enhance the probability of recovery; however, improvements in marine 

survival are necessary to achieve stability and growth. 

Conservation Actions: During 2008–2010, NMFS—in cooperation with the Maine Department of Marine 

Resources (MDMR), FWS, and other partners—pursued a range of management and research activities 

intended to mitigate and reduce the most severe threats to Atlantic salmon and to improve our understanding 

of salmon abundance and population health. Recovery actions and activities implemented during 2008–2010 

included the following: 

•	 Policy/regulatory related actions/activities 

 Revised the listed range of the endangered GOM DPS Atlantic Salmon on June 19, 2009, based 

on further scientific information. 

 Designated Critical Habitat for the continued existence and recovery of the GOM DPS Atlantic 

salmon on June 19, 2009. Three salmon habitat recovery units were identified (Penobscot, 

Merrymeeting Bay, and Downeast Coastal) to help guide management and recovery of the 

species. 

 Developed interim recovery goals to inform the designation of critical habitat and to help guide 

recovery actions. 

 Developed a conceptual Atlantic salmon recovery framework that clearly articulates specific 

goals and objectives for salmon recovery, identifies key limiting factors, and incorporates an 

adaptive management approach to address limiting factors. 

 Initiated the development of a General Conservation Plan to provide a standardized set of 

operating conditions that will be necessary for owners of non-power generating dams to receive 

incidental take permits for a dam’s continued operation. This will save dam owners time and 

money that would otherwise be required for each project owner to develop individual, site 

specific HCPs. 

	 Consulted with federal partners to ensure that federal actions minimize harm to Atlantic salmon 

to the maximum extent practical. 

•	 International coordination, collaboration, and research 

	 Participated in international management of Atlantic salmon through the North Atlantic Salmon 

Conservation Organization, which has led to the development of multiyear regulatory measures 

for high seas Atlantic salmon fisheries, international guidelines for salmon stocking and 

mitigation of threats from aquaculture practices, and country-specific Action Plans that outline 

the implementation of all the Organization’s guidelines. 

	 Conducted annual sampling of the Atlantic salmon fishery in West Greenland. From this 

sampling, biological information related to the Greenlandic local-use catch was used in support 

of international Atlantic salmon stock assessments and to determine salmon continent-of-origin. 

120 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

•	 Restoration of ecosystem function 

	 The Penobscot Trust and partners reached significant milestones in late 2007 by raising the $25 

million needed to purchase the Veazie, Great Works, and Howland Dams as part of the 

Penobscot River Restoration Project. In 2009, the Trust was awarded $4.8 million for the 

removal of Great Works Dam and $1.3 million for pre-dam removal monitoring studies. In 

anticipation of the restoration potential of the Project, MDMR—in conjunction with Maine 

Inland Fisheries and Wildlife—has completed a strategic management plan (2008) and a 

technical Operational Plan (2009) for diadromous fish in the Penobscot. 

	 In 2009 and 2010, over 70 stream-road related habitat connectivity projects were completed in 

Downeast rivers using American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds. These projects have 

supported a campaign to help inform landowners of the economic and ecological benefit of “fish 

friendly” stream crossings. Storm events in 2010 revealed that these newly installed arch culverts 

were highly resistant to significant flooding, while many nearby culverts constructed to 

traditional standards failed, destroying roads, property, and stream habitat. 

	 In 2008, the Fort Halifax dam within the Merrymeeting Bay salmon habitat recovery unit was 

removed, resulting in restored sea-run fish access to the Sebasticook River. 

	 From 2008–2010, three small dam removals and one fish passage improvement project occurred 

in the Penobscot River watershed, restoring access to historic salmon, river herring, and sea 

lamprey habitat. 

 Worked with stakeholders on a variety of habitat restoration and protection projects. 

 Funded a Fish Passage Restoration Specialist position with the Penobscot Indian Nation through 

the Species Recovery Grants to Tribes Program. 

•	 Annual assessment and monitoring 

	 Continued to monitor and assess the status of wild salmon populations. Electrofishing surveys 

were conducted on most of the rivers in Maine with wild or stocked populations of Atlantic 

salmon to estimate density or relative abundance of juvenile salmon, and rotary screw trapping 

was used to estimate smolt populations, sample smolts, and determine age and origin of 

emigrating smolts. In addition, telemetry studies were conducted on several rivers during this 

period to assess smolt survivorship and behavior by monitoring their movement. 

	 Provided significant grant funding to the MDMR for assessment and management activities. 

	 Initiated a long-term fish community study in the Penobscot River estuary with the following 

aims: (1) provide a fishery-independent dataset for individual diadromous species without 

fishway efficiency bias, (2) provide a long-term abundance dataset to test hypotheses about the 

effects of climate change on community structure, (3) provide a quantitative description of the 

predator and prey field in order to test the salmon-river herring prey buffer hypothesis, and (4) 

evaluate ecosystem services through analysis of population biometrics. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: As described in the Recovery Plan, 2006 Status Review Report, 2008 

proposed listing rule, and the 2009 final listing rule, the actions needed in the next several years for the Gulf 

of Maine Atlantic salmon DPS fall into several broad categories: 

•	 Restore ecosystem function in freshwater and estuarine habitat (i.e., dam removal, predation,
 

competition, restoration, water quality/ quantity).
 

•	 Minimize potential for take in freshwater, estuarine, and marine fisheries. 

•	 Increase our understanding of the factors affecting estuarine, coastal, and marine survival. 

•	 Maintain conservation hatchery program and conserve the genetic integrity of the DPS. 

•	 Assess stock status of key life stages. 

•	 Promote salmon recovery through increased public and government awareness. 

•	 Assess effectiveness of recovery actions and revise as appropriate. 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 121 
 

 

Recovery Priority Number: 1 

This ranking is based on several factors, including a high degree of threat, a high potential for recovery, and 

the presence of conflict. The degree of threat is considered high due to continued low population numbers 

and/or threat to Atlantic salmon habitat, and the very low numbers of adult Atlantic salmon returns to the 

DPS. There is a high potential for recovery, and there is conflict between salmon recovery and construction 

or other development projects or forms of economic activity. Taken together, these rankings correspond to a 

recovery priority number of 1. 

122 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NON-SALMONID FISH RECOVERY 

Bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis) – Puget Sound/Georgia Basin DPS 

Date Listed: April 28, 2010 

(75 FR 22276) 

Legal Status: Endangered 

Recovery Plan Status: 

No recovery plan has been developed for 

the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin DPS of 

bocaccio. Recovery planning is expected to 

begin in 2011. 

Species Status: The Puget 

Sound/Georgia Basin DPS includes all 

bocaccio found in waters of the Puget 

Sound, the Strait of Georgia, and the Strait 

of Juan de Fuca east of the Victoria sill. 

There are no historic or contemporary 

abundance estimates for bocaccio within the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin, yet there is clear evidence that their 

abundance has declined dramatically. The total rockfish population in the Puget Sound region is estimated to 

have declined around 3 percent per year for the past several decades, which corresponds to an approximate 

70 percent decline from 1965 to 2007. Fisheries catch data show that bocaccio have declined at a greater rate 

than the overall rockfish populations. Past fisheries have disproportionately removed larger and older adults, 

leaving reproduction to smaller and younger fish. Smaller and younger females produce fewer and less fit 

larvae compared to older fish. 

Threats and Impacts: Bocaccio are incidentally taken in some commercial and recreational fisheries. Even 

though most fish are released, many die due to rapid pressure changes when they are removed from deep 

waters. New and existing derelict fishing gear such as lost fishing nets and crab and shrimp pots kill bocaccio 

and their various prey. Actively fished shrimp pots (and possibly crab pots) also result in bycatch of juvenile 

bocaccio. Excess nutrients entering Puget Sound impact the suitability of habitat, such as Hood Canal, by 

creating low dissolved oxygen levels. Some contaminants bioaccumulate within rockfish, possibly resulting in 

reproductive impairment. Nearly one-third of the nearshore of Puget Sound has been developed. This 

development impairs the productivity of food sources of rockfish, and alters the quality of nearshore rearing 

habitats for juvenile bocaccio. Climate change could result in temperature regime and circulation changes that 

impact food sources of bocaccio and affect reproductive success. Increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the 

ocean changes pH levels (ocean acidification), and can alter the physiology, metabolism, and reproductive 

biology of fish. Ocean acidification could also impact the food web, resulting in unknown changes in food 

availability to upper-level predators such as rockfish. As with nearly all marine species of Puget Sound, large 

oil spills represent a significant risk to bocaccio and their prey. 

Conservation Actions: Major conservation actions conducted in 2008–2010 to advance recovery of 

bocaccio include the following: 

•	 Funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act enabled the removal of thousands of 

derelict fishing nets from waters shallower than 100 feet within the past several years, restoring many 

acres of Puget Sound. 

•	 The State of Washington has prohibited recreational fishing for bottomfish in waters deeper than 

120 feet deep, and prohibited the retention of any rockfish species in Puget Sound, each reducing 

Photo credit: M. Yoklavich, NMFS 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 123 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

bycatch risks for bocaccio. The State has also closed several active and inactive commercial fisheries 

that targeted rockfish, or resulted in bycatch of rockfish. 

•	 The State of Washington has conducted Remotely Operated Vehicle surveys of rockfish habitats near 

the San Juan Islands, which enabled an estimate of the abundance of bocaccio in this region. 

•	 NMFS funded surveys for derelict fishing gear in waters deeper than 100 feet, resulting in the 

documentation of over 50 nets. 

•	 NMFS initiated research of ocean acidification effects on rockfish larvae in 2010. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: The priority recovery actions for bocaccio include methods to address 

the primary threats and impacts and include the following: 

•	 Support Washington State’s goal of developing a science-based system of marine reserves/rockfish 

conservation areas within each of the major basins of Puget Sound to protect significant numbers of 

rockfish stocks, their habitats, and ecosystem. These reserves should be established with the input of 

scientists, tribes, recreational and commercial fishermen, and interested parties to enable the 

development of goals and objectives that facilitate recovery of bocaccio. The establishment of 

reserves would be aided by benthic habitat and fish abundance surveys, research/modeling of adult 

and larval dispersal and recruitment, and research on adult bocaccio movement and migratory 

patterns. 

•	 Only a portion of the waters less than 100 feet in depth has been surveyed for derelict nets and only 

a fraction of the deeper water areas of Puget Sound have been surveyed. The continued survey and 

removal of derelict fishing gear, including gear located in waters deeper than 100 feet (where most 

adult bocaccio live), would improve habitat suitability and ecosystem function. 

•	 The prevention of new derelict fishing gear should occur by evaluating technologies and practices 

that could be used by commercial fishermen. In addition, systems to track nets upon their loss 

should be investigated to better aid their retrieval, as well as other measures necessary to prevent and 

track lost gear. 

•	 Research and develop recreational fishing methods that reduce bycatch of rockfish, and methods to 

improve the survival of unintentionally caught bocaccio including actions such as identifying the best 

handling practices and rapid submergence techniques and educating fishermen about these 

techniques. 

•	 Work with the Government of Canada to provide mutual benefits regarding rockfish research, 

management, and complementary recovery planning across transboundary waters. 

•	 Work with fishing groups regarding rockfish species identification and understanding of rockfish lifehistory and recovery options. 

•	 Support regional efforts to reduce nutrient and chemical contaminant inputs, cleaning up legacy 

contaminants, and spill response capability. 

•	 Research the effects of anthropogenic stressors to kelp, which are rearing habitats of juvenile 

bocaccio. Assess the historical and current kelp abundance and distribution by compiling historical 

data sets, collecting new data on current conditions, and comparing similar small-scale data sets to 

detect trends over time. Develop protection, conservation, and restoration approaches for kelp with 

special reference to rockfish habitat. 

Recovery Priority Number: 3 

This recovery priority number is based on a high magnitude of threat due to low abundance and low 

productivity of bocaccio and continuing threats to recovery. It is also based on a moderate recovery potential, 

and presence of conflict, because regulatory actions taken could involve restrictions on recreational and 

commercial fishing, and other actions that may harm bocaccio habitat. 

124 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Canary rockfish (Sebastes pinniger) – Puget Sound/Georgia Basin 

Date Listed: April 28, 2010 

(75 FR 22276) 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Photo credit: Stan Shebs Recovery Plan Status: No recovery plan 

has been developed for the Puget 

Sound/Georgia Basin DPS of canary 

rockfish. Recovery planning is expected to 

begin in 2011. 

Species Status: The Puget Sound/Georgia 

Basin DPS includes all canary rockfish 

found in waters of the Puget Sound, the Photo credit: Stan Shebs 

Strait of Georgia, and the Strait of Juan de 

Fuca east of the Victoria sill. There are no historic or contemporary abundance estimates for canary rockfish 

within the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin, yet there is clear evidence their abundance has declined dramatically. 

The total rockfish population in the Puget Sound region is estimated to have declined around 3 percent per 

year for the past several decades, which corresponds to an approximate 70 percent decline from 1965 to 

2007. Fisheries catch data show that canary rockfish have declined at a greater rate than the overall rockfish 

populations. Past fisheries have disproportionately removed larger and older adults, leaving reproduction to 

smaller and younger fish. Smaller and younger females produce fewer and less fit larvae compared to older 

fish. 

Threats and Impacts: Canary rockfish continue to be incidentally taken in some commercial and 

recreational fisheries. Even though most fish are released, many die due to rapid pressure changes when they 

are removed from deep waters. Derelict fishing gear, such as lost fishing nets and crab and shrimp pots, likely 

kill canary rockfish and their various prey. Actively fished shrimp pots (and possibly crab pots) also result in 

bycatch of juvenile canary rockfish. Excess nutrients entering Puget Sound impact habitat suitability in some 

areas, such as Hood Canal, by creating low dissolved oxygen levels. Some contaminants within Puget Sound 

bioaccumulate possibly resulting in reproductive impairment of rockfish. Nearly one-third of the nearshore of 

Puget Sound has been developed. This development impairs the productivity of food sources of rockfish, and 

alters the quality of rearing habitats for juvenile canary rockfish. Climate change could result in temperature 

regime and circulation changes that impact food sources of canary rockfish and affect reproductive success. 

Increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the ocean changes pH levels (ocean acidification) and can alter the 

physiology, metabolism, and reproductive biology of fish. Ocean acidification could also impact the food 

web, resulting in unknown changes in food availability to upper-level predators such as rockfish. As with 

nearly all marine species of Puget Sound, large oil spills represent a significant risk to canary rockfish and their 

prey. 

Conservation Actions: Major conservation actions conducted in 2008–2010 to advance recovery of canary 

rockfish include the following: 

•	 Funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act enabled the removal of thousands of 

derelict fishing nets from waters shallower than 100 feet within the past several years, restoring many 

acres of the Puget Sound. 

•	 The State of Washington has prohibited recreational fishing for bottomfish in waters deeper than 

120 feet deep, and prohibited the retention of any rockfish species in the Puget Sound, each reducing 

bycatch risks for canary rockfish. The State has also closed several active and inactive commercial 

fisheries that targeted rockfish, or resulted in bycatch of rockfish. 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 125 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

•	 The State of Washington has conducted Remotely Operated Vehicle surveys of rockfish habitats near 

the San Juan Islands, which enabled an estimate of the abundance of canary rockfish in this region. 

•	 NMFS funded surveys for derelict fishing gear in waters deeper than 100 feet, resulting in the 

documentation of over 50 nets. 

•	 NMFS initiated research of ocean acidification affects on rockfish larvae in 2010. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: The priority recovery actions for canary rockfish include methods to 

address the primary threats and impacts, and include the following: 

•	 Support Washington State’s goal of developing a science-based system of marine reserves/rockfish 

conservation areas within each of the major basins of Puget Sound to protect significant numbers of 

rockfish stocks, their habitats and ecosystem. These reserves should be established with the input of 

scientists, tribes, recreational and commercial fishermen, and interested parties to enable the 

development of goals and objectives that facilitate recovery of canary rockfish. The establishment of 

reserves would be aided by benthic habitat and fish abundance surveys, research/modeling of adult 

and larval dispersal and recruitment, and research on adult canary rockfish movement and migratory 

patterns. 

•	 Only a portion of the waters less than 100 feet in depth has been surveyed for derelict nets and only 

a fraction of the deeper water areas of Puget Sound have been surveyed. The continued survey and 

removal of derelict fishing gear, including gear located in waters deeper than 100 feet (where most 

adult canary rockfish live), would improve habitat suitability and ecosystem function. 

•	 The prevention of new derelict fishing gear should occur by evaluating technologies and practices 

that could be used by commercial fishermen. In addition, systems to track nets upon their loss 

should be investigated to better aid their retrieval, as well as other measures necessary to prevent and 

track lost gear. 

•	 Research and develop recreational fishing methods that reduce bycatch of rockfish, and improve the 

survival of unintentionally caught canary rockfish through actions such as identifying the best 

handling practices and rapid submergence techniques and educating fishermen about these 

techniques. 

•	 Work with the Government of Canada to provide mutual benefits regarding rockfish research, 

management, and complementary recovery planning across transboundary waters. 

•	 Work with fishing groups regarding rockfish species identification and understanding of rockfish lifehistory and recovery options. 

•	 Support regional efforts to reduce nutrient and chemical contaminant inputs, cleaning up legacy 

contaminants, and spill response capability. 

•	 Research the effects of anthropogenic stressors to kelp, which are rearing habitats of juvenile canary 

rockfish. Assess the historical and current kelp abundance and distribution by compiling historical 

data sets, collecting new data on current conditions, and comparing similar small-scale data sets to 

detect trends over time. Develop protection, conservation, and restoration approaches for kelp with 

special reference to rockfish habitat. 

Recovery Priority Number: 7 

This recovery priority number is based on a moderate magnitude of threat due to low abundance and low 

productivity of canary rockfish and continuing threats to recovery. It is also based on a moderate recovery 

potential, and presence of conflict from potential future regulatory actions that could involve restrictions on 

recreational and commercial fishing, and other actions that may harm canary rockfish habitat. 

126 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus) – Southern DPS 

Date Listed: March 18, 2010 (75 FR 13012) 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: No recovery plan has been 

completed for the Southern DPS of eulachon. A 

Recovery Outline is under development and a Recovery 

Team is currently being formed. A proposed critical 

habitat designation was published in January 2011 (76 FR 

515) and is expected to be finalized by July 2011. 

Species Status: Eulachon spawning in Washington, 

Oregon, and California rivers are part of the Southern 

DPS that extends beyond the conterminous United States 

and includes all populations spawning in rivers south of 

the Nass River in British Columbia, Canada, to and 

including the Mad River in California. Eulachon spawning 

in the Nass River and further north consist of at least one additional (northern) DPS. 

Although eulachon are a relatively poorly monitored species, the weight of the available information indicates 

that the southern DPS of eulachon experienced an abrupt decline in abundance throughout its range, most 

likely prior to the mid-1990s. The current abundance of eulachon is low and declining in all surveyed 

populations throughout the DPS. Eulachon populations spawning in the Klamath River, lower Columbia 

River Basin, and Fraser River have declined substantially and the southern DPS will likely become 

endangered in the foreseeable future if ongoing threats are not addressed. 

Past and ongoing federal, state, and local protective efforts (many of them habitat-based) have contributed to 

the conservation of the southern DPS, but these efforts alone do not sufficiently reduce the extinction risks 

faced by the southern DPS. 

Threats and Impacts: The primary factors responsible for the decline of the southern DPS of eulachon are 

changes in ocean conditions due to climate change, climate-induced change to freshwater habitats, dams and 

water diversions (particularly in the Columbia and Klamath Rivers where hydropower generation and flood 

control are major activities), and bycatch of eulachon in commercial fisheries. 

Conservation Actions: During 2008–2010, key conservation actions included: 

•	 The states of Oregon and Washington, in consultation with NMFS, have closed all commercial and 

recreational fisheries for eulachon. 

•	 NMFS is funding research and monitoring projects (through Species Recovery Grants to States (ESA 

section 6) and Tribes) to increase existing knowledge of eulachon distribution, abundance, and 

habitat quality in Oregon, Washington, California. This includes separately funded projects to the 

states of Oregon and Washington, the Cowlitz Indian Tribe, and the Yurok Tribe. 

•	 The Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission has changed the administrative rules governing the use of 

bycatch reduction devices in the pink shrimp fishery to reduce the bycatch of eulachon. The new 

rules require the use of rigid-grate bycatch reduction devices with bar spacing no more than 1.0 inch 

starting in 2011, and 0.75 inch beginning in 2012. Initial reports are that most fishermen have already 

converted to rigid-grate bycatch reduction devices with 0.75-inch bar spacing. 

•	 Seasonal in-water work periods are being adjusted as needed to assist in reducing incidental take. 

When possible, in-water work occurs when the species is absent from the project area to avoid take. 

Photo credit: NOAA 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 127 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

•	 Develop and implement a fishery-independent measure of adult eulachon spawning stock abundance 

in order to track trends in local populations. 

•	 Identify the current eulachon spawning distribution within the range of the southern DPS. 

•	 Conduct egg and larvae surveys of known and potential spawning areas in order identify current 

eulachon spawning distribution. 

•	 Determine bycatch rates of eulachon in trawl fishery operations that are not currently covered by onboard observers. 

•	 Reduce the incidental catch of eulachon in commercial shrimp trawl fisheries. 

Recovery Priority Number: 7 

The risk of extinction is believed to be moderate because, although threats due to habitat alterations are 

thought to be high and indirect evidence suggests a decline in abundance, there is much uncertainty regarding 

the scope of threats and the validity of population abundance indices. The recovery potential for this species 

is considered low to moderate because the limiting factors and threats to the species existence are poorly 

understood, and the probability of success of management actions is not known. At present there is a conflict 

between the recovery of the Southern DPS and economic interests. Commercial and recreational eulachon 

fishing and commercial shrimp trawling are among the industries that will be affected by efforts to recover 

the Southern DPS. 

128 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Green Sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris) – Southern DPS 

Date Listed: April 7, 2006 (71 FR 17757) 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: A Recovery Plan is currently being developed for this species and a draft Recovery 

Outline was signed in January 2011. Critical habitat was designated on November 9, 2009 (74 FR 52300). 

ESA take prohibitions were published on July 2, 2010 (75 FR 30714). 

Species Status: The upper mainstem Sacramento River contains the only known spawning population of 

southern DPS (sDPS) green sturgeon. Spawning habitat may have extended into the three major branches of 

the Sacramento River—the Little Sacramento River, the Pit River system, and the McCloud River. However, 

currently Keswick and Shasta Dams on the mainstem of the Sacramento River block passage to the upper 

river, while the Red Bluff Diversion Dam, located downstream of Keswick Dam, blocks passage to a portion 

of the spawning grounds on a seasonal basis after June 15. This restriction to a relatively small area for 

spawning results in the spawning population being especially vulnerable to threats such as poaching or 

stochastic events such as chemical spills. 

Acoustic tagging studies investigating oceanic migration and behavior patterns suggest that sDPS green 

sturgeon migrate extensively off the west coast of North America, from southern California to southeast 

Alaska. 

There are no data yet available to determine whether the population is increasing or decreasing since the 

listing in 2006. Studies are currently being conducted to determine annual abundance of spawning adults in 

the upper Sacramento River. Fishing regulations that prohibited retention of green sturgeon in the 

commercial and recreational fisheries along the West Coast starting in 2006 will likely contribute to an 

improvement in population demographics. However, green sturgeon is a long-lived species that matures late 

(~15 years of age) and therefore recovery based on improvement to population demographics could take 

several decades, once threats have been adequately addressed. 

Threats and Impacts: The primary threat to sDPS green sturgeon is the limitation of spawning, due to 

dams and other migration barriers, to a relatively short stretch of the upper Sacramento River. Adequate 

water flow and temperature are issues of concern. Water diversions pose an unknown but potentially serious 

threat within the Sacramento and Feather Rivers and the Delta. Poaching also poses an unknown but 

potentially serious threat because of high demand for sturgeon caviar. The effects of contaminants and nonnative species are also unknown but potentially serious threats. As mentioned above, retention of green 

sturgeon in both recreational and commercial fisheries is now prohibited within the western states, but the 

effect of capture/release in these fisheries is unknown. There is evidence of fish being retained illegally, 

although the magnitude of this activity is likely small. 

Conservation Actions: During 2008–2010, key conservation actions included: 

•	 Designation of critical habitat and promulgation of take prohibitions under ESA section 4(d). These 

actions should help conserve both the species and its habitat. 

•	 The California Fish and Game Commission approved regulations for recreational fisheries, effective 

March 1, 2010, to prohibit fishing for sturgeon in the upper Sacramento River where green sturgeon 

spawn and remain for several months. 

•	 Ongoing salvage of green sturgeon at the Tracy Fish Collection Facility and the Skinner Delta Fish 

Protective Facility in the South Delta. 

•	 Ongoing green sturgeon focused research, including studies on fish passage, genetics, and acoustic 

tagging and tracking to better understand the distribution and migration of green sturgeon. Acoustic 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 129 
 

 

 

 

tagging in Washington and Oregon has recently been funded through a NMFS Species Recovery 

Grant (ESA section 6). 

•	 Activities and projects were conducted under the Central Valley Project Improvement Act and the 

BDCP for the conservation of sDPS green sturgeon and other anadromous fish species and their 

habitats. These activities and projects include: floodplain and river restoration, riparian habitat 

protection, fish screening and passage projects, environmental water acquisitions, and contaminant 

studies. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

•	 Direct assessment and monitoring of sDPS green sturgeon population in the Sacramento and 

Feather Rivers; the Delta; the San Francisco, Suisun, and San Pablo Bays; and coastal areas within the 

110-meter bathymetric contour along the western coast of the continental United States and Alaska 

through trapping and tagging programs. 

•	 Continue genetic analyses to better understand population structure of sDPS green sturgeon. 

•	 Continue acoustic tagging studies to help elucidate migratory and behavior patterns in coastal areas 

within the 110-meter bathymetric contour along the western coast of the continental United States, 

Canada, and Alaska. 

•	 Continue development of habitat models that attempt to predict how much spawning habitat may 

have been lost in California’s Central Valley as a result of the construction of impassable dams in the 

Sacramento and Feather Rivers. 

•	 Evaluate fisheries impacts in Canadian fisheries, especially trawl fisheries on the west coast of 

Vancouver Island and in Hecate Strait. 

•	 Educate fishermen along the West Coast to help them properly identify green sturgeon. 

Recovery Priority Number: 5 

The recovery priority number for sDPS green sturgeon is 5. The risk of extinction is believed to be moderate 

because, although threats due to habitat alterations are thought to be high and indirect evidence suggests a 

decline in abundance, there is much uncertainty regarding the scope of threats and the validity of population 

abundance indices. The recovery potential for this species is likely high if recreational and commercial 

fisheries remain closed and if activities that decrease habitat quality and quantity, particularly in spawning and 

rearing habitat, are limited and adequately monitored. There is conflict between the recovery of sDPS green 

sturgeon and economic interests. Central Valley agriculture, other sources of water resource use, and 

commercial and recreational fishing are among the industries that will be affected by efforts to recover sDPS 

green sturgeon. 

130 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gulf Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi) 

Date Listed: September 30, 1991, 

listed jointly by NMFS and FWS 

(56 FR 49653) 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: The Final 

Recovery Plan for the Gulf sturgeon 

was published in September 1995. 

NMFS and FWS are working on an 

update to the Recovery Plan and 

hope to present it to researchers for 

their review in the fall of 2011. 

Species Status: The Gulf sturgeon is an anadromous fish occurring from the Lake Pontchartrain/Pearl 

River system in Louisiana east to the Suwannee River in Florida and in the Gulf of Mexico. Adults spawn in 

large coastal rivers in the summer; they migrate downstream in the fall and winter cued by water temperature 

into adjacent bays, nearshore coastal waters, and the Gulf of Mexico to forage and grow. Juveniles and subadults inhabit the rivers year-round. No estimate of the historical population size of Gulf sturgeon is 

available. The overall status of the Gulf sturgeon is mostly stable but likely to vary across the range; generally 

populations in the eastern rivers are more numerous than those to the west. The status of the western-most 

populations of Gulf sturgeon may be at increased risk due to lack of a recent survey coupled with the recent 

environmental stress (e.g., hurricanes and the 2010 BP/Deepwater Horizon oil spill). 

A 5-year review of the status of the Gulf sturgeon was finalized in September 2009 jointly by NMFS and 

FWS. Concurrently NMFS funded a data assessment review in order to construct population trends and 

ultimately provide guidance on conservation targets. Two estimates were calculated: 

1.	 Commercial landings were used to reconstruct historical population biomass prior to the onset of 

commercial fishing. Results suggest that population biomass for this species in Florida was severely 

reduced—by about 90 percent during a short but intense period of commercial harvest. After largescale fishing was abandoned, a small (exploitation less than 5 percent annually) but sustainable fishery 

persisted until the fishery was closed in 1984. Understanding the historic population assists in 

determining a recovered population. 

2.	 Using previously collected data from two rivers that likely supported the largest fisheries 

(Apalachicola and Suwannee) and age-structured mark-recapture NMFS estimated abundance, 

recruitment, and mortality of Gulf sturgeon. Models found increasing trends in population size 

during the 1980s; however, results for more recent periods diverged as some results showed sharp 

population declines and others population increases. These differences are likely due to low recapture 

rates, sparse data, and poor model fit. 

The data assessment highlighted the importance of standardized data collection. As a result, NMFS and FWS 

co-hosted three workshops in 2010 to identify a range-wide monitoring program, standardize survey 

techniques and equipment, and teach surgery methods required for internal placement of acoustic tags. Funds 

were secured to provide the researchers with the equipment and supplies needed to conduct the range-wide 

monitoring program. This program is scheduled to take place over the next 5 years. 

Threats and Impacts: Population-limiting factors for the Gulf sturgeon include habitat degradation and 

loss that is being exacerbated by water allocation, drought conditions, and development; poor water quality 

(including temperature, dissolved oxygen, and contaminants); and barriers (i.e., dams and sills) that impede 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 131 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

access to historical spawning areas. Impacts from the 2010 BP/Deepwater Horizon oil spill are unknown at 

this time but are expected to exacerbate ongoing habitat degradation; although the Gulf sturgeon were 

upriver during the time of the spill, their prey are found solely in the estuaries, bays, and marine environment. 

Ongoing assessments of both the benthic community and the Gulf sturgeon health through blood assays 

should help to identify impacts of the oil spill to both the fish and its prey. 

Conservation Actions: During 2008–2010, key conservation actions included: 

•	 Completion of the 5-year review of the status of the Gulf sturgeon. 

•	 Data assessment that led to standardized survey methodology and data collection. 

•	 Cooperation with FWS and the states: 

	 All six states with Gulf sturgeon have active ESA section 6 Cooperative Agreements, making 

funds through the Species Recovery Grant Program available. Mississippi has secured funding 

through this competitive program for a 3-year project to identify feeding habitat for and 

movement of the juvenile/sub-adult cohort. 

	 Together with FWS, NMFS initiated a range-wide monitoring program in 2010 to improve data 

availability for estimating abundance, recruitment, and mortality of Gulf sturgeon. This program 

has regional support as it requires NMFS and FWS to provide equipment and supplies over the 

next 5 years; NFMS currently relies on in-house budgets to support this program and continue to 

seek additional funds. 

	 Annual Gulf sturgeon meetings continue to bring researchers and managers together each fall to 

exchange information and brainstorm ideas for the recovery and conservation actions. 

•	 NMFS continues to fund a number of research projects to increase existing knowledge of the Gulf 

sturgeon, their prey, and their habitat utilization. Listed below are a few of these ongoing efforts: 

 Genetic tissue analysis to investigate population structure. 

	 Monitoring program to improve estimates of natural mortality across range and realize interriverine movements. 

 Quantify and compare habitat utilization of Gulf sturgeon to determine changes in residency and 

activity areas to realize effects of substrate, prey, and environmental changes. 

•	 A Natural Resource Data Assessment is ongoing in the Gulf of Mexico to determine effects of the 

2010 BP/Deepwater Horizon oil spill on the Gulf sturgeon and its critical habitat, along with an 

assessment of Gulf sturgeon prey and habitat. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

•	 Update the 1995 Recovery Plan and Recovery Criteria. 

•	 Determine whether Gulf sturgeon are composed of a single or multiple populations. 

•	 Continue to secure funds to support the 5-year Monitoring Program. 

•	 Continue to work on a web-based database for entry and analysis. 

•	 Investigate population demographics to better understand vulnerable life stages. 

•	 Continue cooperation between NMFS and FWS for joint management and coordinated research. 

•	 Nurture partnerships with states and researchers. 

Recovery Priority Number: 8 

This ranking corresponds to a moderate degree of threat, low to moderate potential for recovery, and the 

absence of conflict with economic activities. In accordance with the FWS Recovery Priority Guidelines, the 

FWS has assigned the Gulf sturgeon a priority number of 12. The difference in numerical value between 

NMFS and the FWS reflects the consideration of taxonomic classifications, which are used by FWS but not 

by NMFS in designating recovery priority numbers. 

132 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Shortnose Sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) 

Date Listed: March 11, 19678 

Legal Status: Endangered 

Recovery Plan Status: The final recovery plan for shortnose sturgeon was published in December 1998. 

Species Status: The shortnose sturgeon is an anadromous fish inhabiting large coastal rivers along the 

eastern seaboard of North America from the Saint John River in New Brunswick, Canada, south to the St. 

Johns River in Florida. Its life history includes fidelity to the natal river, resulting in a substantial amount of 

reproductive isolation and genetic distinctiveness between most populations. Because of the substantial 

reproductive isolation of shortnose sturgeon between rivers and river systems, NMFS recognized 19 separate 

populations in the final recovery plan. To date, NMFS has not formally listed DPSs of shortnose sturgeon 

under the ESA, and shortnose sturgeon are listed range-wide as endangered. 

NMFS initiated a status review of shortnose sturgeon in 2007; the draft is currently being finalized. To aid in 

the status review, NMFS assembled a status review team consisting of nine federal and state biologists to 

compile and review the best available commercial and scientific information on shortnose sturgeon. As part 

of the review, the status review team examined recent genetics data as well as other information to re-evaluate 

the population structure of shortnose sturgeon range-wide. 

While historical population estimates for shortnose sturgeon are not available, fishery accounts indicate 

sturgeon were previously abundant in many river systems along the U.S. East Coast. The current status of the 

species is mixed, as trends in abundance and population demographics vary for the different river systems 

across their range. While there are new population estimates for some river systems, particularly in the 

northeast, and several of these are showing positive increases in abundance, population estimates for many of 

the riverine populations of shortnose sturgeon remain undetermined or dated. As limited resources allow, 

NMFS continues to support surveys of river systems where shortnose are present or are suspected, to help 

improve our understanding of the status of the various populations. 

Threats and Impacts: Threats to shortnose sturgeon also vary by river system (Table 5). Many threats to 

the species are range-wide, while others are specific to populations in the southeast. As threats have been 

reduced in some rivers, shortnose sturgeon populations have apparently grown or stabilized. In other rivers, 

particularly in the southeast, sturgeon population size remains low or the status is unknown. 

Across the species’ range, dam construction and pollution associated with industrial growth in the late 1800s 

and early 1900s has resulted in substantial loss of suitable habitat. In addition, habitat alterations from 

discharges, dredging and/or disposal, or related development activities involving estuaries/riverine mudflats 

and marshes remain constant threats to the sturgeon and its habitat. In addition, bycatch mortality, 

predominantly in shad gillnet fisheries, likely adversely impact the recovery of some shortnose sturgeon 

populations, although the extent of this bycatch mortality is mostly unknown. 

Large-scale factors impacting riverine water quality and quantity that likely exacerbate habitat threats to 

shortnose sturgeon include drought, intra- and interstate water allocation, and climate change. The 

southeastern United States has been experiencing several years of ongoing drought, and it is predicted that 

these conditions will persist, exacerbating the existing impacts from dams. Water allocation issues are 

increasing with human population growth. Abnormally low stream flow can restrict access to habitat areas, 

reduce thermal refugia, and exacerbate water quality issues such as high temperature, low dissolved oxygen, 

8 Shortnose sturgeon was first listed March 11, 1967, under the Endangered Species Preservation Act; the species remained on the endangered species 

list when the ESA was enacted in 1973. 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 133 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and elevated nutrient and contaminant levels. Further reduction in flow would likely disrupt spawning cues 

and upstream migration may occur earlier; a disparity between prey availability and demand by larvae could 

ensue. Data from gauging stations indicate that periods when river flows are inadequate to protect the 

riverine environment are becoming more frequent. Human-induced modifications to free-flowing rivers also 

influence coastal and marine systems, often reducing the ability of the system to adapt to natural variability 

and change. 

Table 5. Major shortnose sturgeon threats by river system. 

River System Dams Dredging Water 

Quality/Quantity 

Commercial 

Bycatch 

Penobscot 

Kennebec Complex 

Merrimack 

Connecticut,  

Housatonic 

Hudson 

Delaware 

"Chesapeake" & C&D 

Susquehanna 

Potomac 

Roanoke 

Chowan 

Tar/Pamlico 

Neuse 

New 

Cape Fear  

Winyah Bay Complex  

Lower Santee 

Cooper 

Santee Cooper Reservoir System 

ACE Basin 

Savannah  

Ogeechee 

Altamaha 

Satilla 

St. Mary's 

St. John's 











































































Note: This table does not include all threats, and the absence of a river does not indicate shortnose sturgeon do not 

exist, or have not previously been present, in that system. 

Conservation Actions: During 2008–2010, key conservation actions included: 

•	 Status review: The status review team worked on completing the status review report during the 2008– 

2010 timeframe. In 2011, the final status review will be released for public dissemination along with 

the NMFS determination on whether the listing remains appropriate. If a listing revision is proposed, 

associated rulemaking activities will be initiated. 

•	 Reducing incidental take: Incidental capture of sturgeon is being reduced by seasonal in-water work 

windows, relocation trawling and addressing bycatch in various fisheries. In-water work windows are 

utilized throughout the range in order to reduce the likelihood of encountering a sturgeon; in-water 

work is primarily limited to periods when sturgeon are not in the area. Relocation trawling is utilized 

in the southeast to minimize incidental take of shortnose sturgeon in dredge operations. This method 

was first used to relocate Gulf sturgeon, wherein shrimp trawlers sweep benthos in the path of the 

oncoming dredge. Both in-water work windows and relocation trawling can be included as a term 

and condition in section 7 consultations as conservation measures. Permitting bycatch (e.g., shad 

134 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

gillnet fishery) will reduce incidental take as required through ESA section 10, as steps to minimize 

and mitigate take are required. 

•	 Education and outreach: A sturgeon carcass collection permit was issued to allow researchers along the 

eastern seaboard to obtain tissue samples for research and diagnostic analyses from shortnose 

sturgeon found dead in the wild or from captive facilities. The same permit also allows parts and 

whole specimens to be held by educators, allowing sturgeon mounts and preserved specimens to 

assist in outreach and education. This permit was instrumental in allowing the collection of tissues 

from an unusual mortality event that occurred in the Kennebec River, Maine, in 2009. Tissue 

analyses provided some evidence that the mortality event may have been due to a severe red tide 

event. 

•	 Surveys and research: NMFS continues to financially support research in many areas including 

population structure (genetic analysis), movement, diet, health assessments, life history, habitat use, 

behavior, age and growth, spawning success, sampling techniques, and effects of altered 

environmental parameters (dissolved oxygen and temperature) and contaminants. Much of this work 

is funded through the Species Recovery Grant (ESA section 6) Program. In addition, through 

section 7 consultations, NMFS can identify information required to assist in the relicensing of 

hydropower plants and/or bridge construction. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: The shortnose sturgeon recovery plan is dated; it was finalized in 

1998. Since then, we gathered much information on population structure, movement and migration, and 

distribution; this information is included in the revised shortnose sturgeon status review that is currently 

being finalized. We intend to update the recovery plan by addressing threats on a riverine scale to identify 

conservation actions. 

Recovery Priority Number: 5 

This number is based on the following rationale: the magnitude of threat for shortnose sturgeon is moderate, 

particularly given the extremely low numbers of shortnose sturgeon in the southern portion of the species’ 

range and considering the more abundant populations in other rivers; the recovery potential for this species is 

high, as many of the needed management actions are identified in the recovery plan; and this species is in 

conflict with construction or other development projects (e.g., bridge construction/demolition, dredging, 

blasting, and power plant operations) in most, if not all, of the species’ range. Taken together, these rankings 

correspond to a recovery priority number of 5. 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 135 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Smalltooth Sawfish (Pristis pectinata) – U.S. DPS 

Date Listed: April 1, 2003 (68 FR 15674) 

Legal Status: Endangered 

Recovery Plan Status: The Smalltooth 

Sawfish Recovery Plan published on January 

21, 2009. 

Species Status: Smalltooth sawfish were once 

prevalent throughout Florida and were 

commonly encountered from Texas to North 

Carolina. Currently, smalltooth sawfish can 

only be found with any regularity in southwest 

Florida between Charlotte Harbor and the 

Everglades National Park. Based on the 

contraction in range and anecdotal data, it is 

likely that the population is currently at a level 

less than 5 percent of its size at the time of European settlement. On September 2, 2009, NMFS designated 

critical habitat for the species. The critical habitat consists of two units: the Charlotte Harbor Estuary Unit, 

which comprises approximately 221,459 acres of coastal habitat; and the Ten Thousand Islands/Everglades 

Unit, which comprises approximately 619,013 acres of coastal habitat. The two units are located along the 

southwestern coast of Florida between Charlotte Harbor and Florida Bay. The function of the critical habitat 

is to facilitate recruitment of juveniles into the population. In October 2010, NMFS also published a 5-year 

review of the species’ status. The review concluded that the U.S. DPS of smalltooth sawfish remains 

vulnerable to extinction and the species still meets the definition of endangered under the ESA, because the 

species is in danger of extinction throughout its range. 

There has been no significant change in the range limits of the species since its listing in 2003. The population 

continues to be found predominantly in southwest Florida, centered in the protected areas of the Everglades 

National Park and the Ten Thousand Islands. Continued long-term collection of public sawfish encounter 

reports for the National Sawfish Encounter Database will be an excellent source of information regarding the 

distribution of the species. 

Presently, the population appears stable. Long-term monitoring and relative abundance field studies are 

necessary to continue to gather biological data on the species and to ensure the goals of the recovery plan are 

being met. These actions need to continue into the future to determine abundance information on the 

species. 

Public outreach and education are essential to protecting the species from mortality associated with 

recreational and commercial fisheries. Outreach funding is necessary to promote the recovery and 

conservation of the species. Sawfish Handling and Release Guidelines were developed for commercial and 

recreational fisheries in 2006, and were incorporated into the recovery plan. 

Threats and Impacts: The overriding threats to the species are bycatch in commercial and recreational 

fisheries, and loss and degradation of habitat. Smalltooth sawfish are caught incidentally in various types of 

fishing gear, including gillnets, otter trawls, trammel nets, seines, and hand lines. The urbanization of the 

southeastern coastal states continues to modify and remove coastal habitats used by the smalltooth sawfish. 

Juvenile smalltooth sawfish use red mangroves, shallow water less than 3 feet in depth, and euryhaline 

systems to forage and to avoid predation. 

Photo credit: NOAA 

136 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Conservation Actions: During 2008–2010, key conservation actions included: 

•	 Supported cooperative research and outreach (including many of the specific actions below) with the 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission through a Species Recovery Grant (ESA section 

6). 

•	 Directed-research on the short-term movements of adult and sub-adult smalltooth sawfish in their 

area of greatest abundance—Florida Bay and the upper Florida Keys. 

•	 Juvenile satellite and tracking studies in south Florida and juvenile habitat usage studies in southwest 

Florida. 

•	 Monitoring of smalltooth sawfish in the Indian River Lagoon. 

•	 Support for the National Smalltooth Sawfish Encounter Database. 

•	 Satellite tagging study of adult smalltooth sawfish in the shark bottom long-line fishery. 

•	 Education and outreach efforts in Florida. 

•	 Characterizing of past and present mangrove shorelines to aid conservation along the southwest 

coast of Florida. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: Priority actions needed for recovery of the species include the 

following: 

•	 Estimate the extent of native shoreline habitats at the time of listing compared to historic levels. 

•	 Continue outreach efforts to support the distribution and implementation of the Safe Handling and 

Release Guidelines for smalltooth sawfish for recreational and commercial fisheries to minimize 

interactions, injury, and mortality. 

•	 Continue juvenile and adult smalltooth sawfish distribution and abundance surveys in southwest 

Florida. 

•	 Monitor water flow into, and salinity in, the critical habitat units. 

•	 Conduct surveys to determine the relative abundance of smalltooth sawfish off the east and west 

coasts of Florida. 

•	 Implement strategies to reduce bycatch, mortality, and injury in specific fisheries (e.g., shrimp, shark 

bottom long-line, and recreational) to ensure the species’ viability. 

Recovery Priority Number: 7 

Smalltooth sawfish has a recovery priority number of 7, based on a moderate magnitude of threat, a low to 

moderate recovery potential, and the potential for economic conflicts. 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 137 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yelloweye Rockfish (Sebastes ruberrimus) – Puget Sound/Georgia Basin 

Date Listed: April 28, 2010 (75 FR 22276) 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: No recovery plan has 

been developed for the Puget Sound/Georgia 

Basin DPS of yelloweye rockfish. Recovery 

planning is expected to begin in 2011. 

Species Status: The Puget Sound/Georgia Basin 

DPS includes all yelloweye rockfish found in 

waters of the Puget Sound, the Strait of Georgia, 

and the Strait of Juan de Fuca east of Victoria sill. 

There are no historic or contemporary abundance 

estimates for yelloweye rockfish within the Puget 

Sound/Georgia Basin, yet there is clear evidence that their abundance has declined dramatically. The total 

rockfish population in the Puget Sound region is estimated to have declined around 3 percent per year for the 

past several decades, which corresponds to an approximate 70 percent decline from 1965 to 2007. Fisheries 

catch data show that yelloweye rockfish have declined at a greater rate than the overall rockfish population. 

Past fisheries have disproportionately removed larger and older adults, leaving reproduction to smaller and 

younger fish. Smaller and younger females produce fewer and less fit larvae compared to older fish. 

Threats and Impacts: Yelloweye rockfish continue to be incidentally taken in some commercial and 

recreational fisheries. Even though most fish are released, many die due to rapid pressure changes when they 

are removed from deep waters. Derelict fishing gear, such as lost fishing nets and crab and shrimp pots, kill 

yelloweye rockfish and their various prey. Actively fished shrimp pots (and possibly crab pots) also result in 

bycatch of juvenile yelloweye rockfish. Excess nutrients entering Puget Sound impact habitat suitability in 

some areas, such as Hood Canal, by creating low dissolved oxygen levels. Some contaminants within Puget 

Sound bioaccumulate within rockfish, possibly resulting in reproductive impairment. Nearly one-third of the 

nearshore of Puget Sound has been developed. This development impairs the productivity of food sources of 

rockfish. Climate change could result in temperature regime and circulation changes that impact food sources 

of yelloweye rockfish and affect reproductive success. Increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the ocean 

changes pH levels (ocean acidification), and can alter the physiology, metabolism, and reproductive biology of 

fish. Ocean acidification could also impact the food web, resulting in unknown changes in food availability to 

upper-level predators such as rockfish. As with nearly all marine species of Puget Sound, large oil spills 

represent a significant risk to yelloweye rockfish and their prey. 

Conservation Actions: During 2008–2010, key conservation actions included: 

•	 Funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act enabled the removal of thousands of 

derelict fishing nets from waters shallower than 100 feet within the past several years, restoring many 

acres of the Puget Sound. 

•	 The State of Washington has prohibited recreational fishing for bottomfish in waters deeper than 

120 feet deep, and prohibited the retention of any rockfish species in Puget Sound, each reducing 

bycatch risks for yelloweye rockfish. The State has also closed several active and inactive commercial 

fisheries that targeted rockfish or resulted in bycatch of rockfish. 

•	 The State of Washington has conducted Remotely Operated Vehicle surveys of rockfish habitats near 

the San Juan Islands, which enabled an estimate of the localized abundance of yelloweye rockfish in 

this region. 

•	 NMFS funded surveys for derelict fishing gear in waters deeper than 100 feet, resulting in the 

documentation of over 50 nets. 

Photo credit: V. O’Connell, NMFS 

138 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

•	 NMFS initiated research of ocean acidification affects on rockfish larvae in 2010. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: The priority recovery actions for yelloweye rockfish include methods 

to address the primary threats and impacts, and include the following: 

•	 Support Washington State’s goal of developing a science-based system of marine reserves/rockfish 

conservation areas within each of the major basins of the Puget Sound to protect significant amounts 

of rockfish stocks, their habitats, and ecosystem. These reserves should be established with the input 

of scientists, tribes, recreational and commercial fishermen, and interested parties to enable the 

development of goals and objectives that facilitate recovery of yelloweye rockfish. The establishment 

of reserves would be aided by benthic habitat and fish abundance surveys, and research/modeling of 

adult and larval dispersal and recruitment. 

•	 Only a portion of the waters less than 100 feet in depth have been surveyed for derelict nets and only 

a fraction of the deeper water areas of Puget Sound have been surveyed. The continued survey and 

removal of derelict fishing gear, including gear located in waters deeper than 100 feet (where most 

adult yelloweye rockfish live), would improve habitat suitability and ecosystem function. 

•	 The prevention of new derelict fishing gear should occur by evaluating technologies and practices 

that could be used by commercial fishermen. In addition, systems to track nets upon their loss 

should be investigated to better aid their retrieval, as well as other measures necessary to prevent and 

track lost gear. 

•	 Research and develop recreational fishing methods that reduce bycatch of rockfish, and improve the 

survival of unintentionally caught yelloweye rockfish, through actions such as identifying the best 

handling practices and rapid submergence techniques and educating fishermen about these 

techniques. 

•	 Work with the Government of Canada to provide mutual benefits regarding rockfish research, 

management, and complementary recovery planning across transboundary waters. 

•	 Work with fishing groups regarding rockfish species identification and understanding of rockfish lifehistory and recovery options. 

•	 Support regional efforts to reduce nutrient and chemical contaminant inputs, cleaning up legacy 

contaminants, and spill response capability. 

Recovery Priority Number: 7 

This recovery priority number is based on a moderate magnitude of threat due to low abundance and low 

productivity of yelloweye rockfish and continuing threats to recovery. It is also based on a moderate recovery 

potential, and presence of conflict from potential future regulatory actions that could involve restrictions on 

recreational and commercial fishing, and other actions that may harm yelloweye rockfish habitat. 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 139 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PLANTS 

Johnson’s Seagrass (Halophila johnsonii) 

Date Listed: September 14, 1998 (63 FR 49035) 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: The Johnson’s Seagrass Recovery 

Plan was finalized in September 2002. NMFS is currently 

revising the plan and expects the draft plan will publish in 

2011. 

Species Status: Based on the 5-year review (November 

2007) for the species, Johnson’s seagrass remains vulnerable 

to natural and anthropogenic factors, and the species still 

meets the definition of “threatened” under the ESA 

because it is still likely to become an endangered species 

within the foreseeable future throughout its range. None of 

the threats identified at listing have been curtailed or 

eliminated. 

Threats and Impacts: With the exception of trampling, all of the threats to the species identified in the 

original listing impact the species’ status. These include dredging and filling, shoreline alteration, and altered 

water quality (in particular, modification to salinity). There has been no improvement in the species’ status in 

terms of its risk of extinction since its listing. Finally, no state or local efforts to protect Johnson’s seagrass are 

ameliorating the impacts and threats to the species, even given Florida’s rigorous permitting program 

regarding projects that impact seagrasses generally. Florida has not listed or otherwise identified Johnson’s 

seagrass for specific protections. 

Conservation Actions: During 2008–2010, key conservation actions included: 

•	 Continued to monitor the established permanent monitoring plots within the range of the species. 

•	 Supported studies to determine the physiological responses and salinity tolerance threshold(s) of the 

species from samples taken from river and inlet (marine) sites. 

•	 Supported a study to develop a restoration plan that identifies potential site-specific restoration 

opportunities for the species. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: Priority actions needed to recovery the species include: 

•	 Conduct a comprehensive assessment of salinity threats to the species. 

•	 Continue to monitor the northern and southern distribution limits of the species and monitor the 

temporal variation in these limits. 

•	 Provide funding for experimental and modeling studies to determine the species’ salinity tolerance. 

•	 Monitor water management practices within the range of the species to determine the potential 

threats to species survival from freshwater discharges. 

Recovery Priority Number: 7 

Johnson’s seagrass is assigned a recovery priority number of 7, based on a moderate magnitude of threats, a 

low to moderate recovery potential, and potential for economic conflict. The recovery potential was 

considered low to moderate and the economic conflict was considered to exist based on anticipated in-water 

construction projects (i.e., dredging, dock construction, water discharges, and projects that adversely modify 

water quality). 

Photo credit: Lori Morris 

140 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

INVERTEBRATES 

Black abalone (Haliotis cracherodii) 

Date Listed: January 14, 2009 (74 FR 1937) 

Legal Status: Endangered 

Recovery Plan Status: Recovery planning 

efforts are scheduled to get underway in 2011 and 

will continue through 2014. 

Species Status: Black abalone has experienced 

major declines in abundance due to historical 

overfishing and, more recently, mass mortalities 

associated with a disease known as “withering 

syndrome.” These declines prompted the closure 

of the commercial and recreational fisheries in 

1993 and resulted in local extinctions and low 

local densities in the majority of long-term monitoring sites in California (Figure 11). These declines have 

been particularly severe in the California Channel Islands, which were major foci for the commercial fishery 

from 1970 to 1993 and where abalone densities were high (greater than 40 per square meter) as late as the 

mid- 1980s. Although the geographic range of black abalone extends to northern California, the vast majority 

of abalone populations have historically occurred south of Monterey, particularly in the California Channel 

Islands. Thus, black abalone populations have been severely reduced in areas that comprised the majority of 

the adult black abalone populations in California. 

Natural recovery of severely reduced abalone populations can be a very slow process. This is largely due to 

the low reproductive success of widely dispersed adult populations coupled with short larval dispersal. 

Therefore, severely reduced populations, in addition to providing few reproductive adults, also experience 

reduced success of fertilization and recruitment of larval abalone. Moreover, many studies have shown that 

abalone larvae are generally not widely dispersed. Thus, although more abundant black abalone populations 

occur in central and perhaps northern California, decimated stocks in southern California are unlikely to 

receive significant recruitment from these distant populations. Studies indicate that a local adult density 

“threshold” exists and influences local recruitment. Below the critical threshold density, gametes released by 

males and females into the water column do not meet successfully and fertilization does not occur. Recovery 

will largely depend on the density of local brood stocks and whether this density is below the critical value 

necessary for successful recruitment. Based on empirical data from three long-term studies of black abalone 

in California, recruitment failure occurred below a mean adult density of 0.34 per square meter. Given that 

the majority of populations south of Cayucos in central California are below this threshold—many 

significantly so—it seems unlikely that these populations will be able to recover naturally to their former 

abundances, at least in the near future. Moreover, given the continued decline of most populations and the 

continued northward expansion of withering syndrome with ocean warming events, it seems likely that black 

abalone populations will continue to decline across their range. 

Threats and Impacts: The most severe threat to black abalone populations is posed by the manifestation 

and continuing spread of withering syndrome disease. Increasing sea surface temperatures in the future will 

facilitate the spread of the disease to the remaining uninfected populations. Additionally, increased 

temperatures may increase the virulence of the disease in many of the northern, more abundant populations 

where the pathogen is present. Water temperatures can become elevated because of anthropogenic sources of 

thermal effluent and long-and short-term climate change (e.g., long-term climate change and El Niño— 

Photo credit: David Witting, NOAA Restoration Center 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 141 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Southern Oscillation). Throughout most of the species’ range, local densities are below the critical threshold 

density required for successful spawning and recruitment. This phenomenon, known as the “Allee effect” or 

“depensation,” has occurred because of mass mortalities due to withering syndrome and overutilization for 

commercial and recreational purposes. Overutilization no longer poses a threat in California because the 

black abalone fisheries were closed in 1993. However, forms of illegal take such as poaching resulting from 

inadequate law enforcement and unsafe aquaculture practices have had negative impacts on black abalone 

populations and are likely to continue to do so into the future. 

SBI 

SCaI SNI 

SClI 

SMI AI SCI SRI 

Long-Term Study Location Key 

1=Pigeon Point 

2=Ano Nuevo Island 

3=Stillwater Cove 

4=Point Lobos 

5=Mal Paso 

6=Andrew Molera 

7=Point Sierra Nevada 

8=Piedras Blancas 

9=Rancho Marino 

10=Cayucos 

11=Diablo Canyon 

12=Purisima 

13=Stairs 

17=Otter Harbor 

25=Frenchys Cove SBI=Santa Barbara Island 

14=Boathouse 

15=Government point 

16=Harris Point 

18=Crook Point 

19=Northwest Talcott 

20=Fossil Reef 

21=Ford Point 

22=Johnson’s Lee 

23=Fraser Point 

24=Forney Cove 

26=Middle West 

27=Sea Lion Rookery 

28=San Nicolas Island 

29=Point Vicente 

30=Abalone Cove 1&2 

31=Portuguese Bend 

32=Laguna Beach 

SMI=San Miguel Island 

SRI=Santa Rosa Island 

SCI=Santa Cruz Island 

AI=Anacapa Island 

SNI=San Nicolas Island 

SCaI=Catalina Island 

SClI=San Clemente Island 

Figure 11. Point Arena (Mendocino County, California) to Bahia Tortugas, Mexico, including the offshore islands. The 

area between Rancho Marino (San Luis Obispo County) and Boathouse (Santa Barbara County) marks a transition zone 

where study locations to the north of Rancho Marino have not experienced population declines and those to the south 

of Boathouse have experienced population declines > 98%. Inset depicts 32 study locations examined for long-term 

monitoring data and the presence of black abalone in California from 1975-2006. Percent decline in abundance pre- and 

post- onset of disease (i.e., withering syndrome) and current mean density (number/m2) of black abalone at each study 

location (2002-2006) are indicated parenthetically and respectively. 

Conservation Actions: 

•	 Studied the factors that control the transmission of the bacteria that causes withering syndrome, rates 

of infection, and resistance to the disease. 

•	 Continued to monitor and tag/recapture wild black abalone to gather life history information for use 

in models (e.g., aggregative behavior and movement patterns) that can generate predictions about the 

future status of populations. 

•	 Characterized the habitat quality of rocky intertidal coastlines in order to prioritize management and 

recovery efforts for black abalone. 

•	 Studied the dynamics of black abalone reproduction to determine the appropriate spatial and
 

temporal scale of recovery efforts.
 

142 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

•	 Published proposed critical habitat designation on September 28, 2010 along with supporting draft 

documents that compile and assess the habitat features essential for conserving black abalone and 

identify activities that may need to be managed in order to protect those features. Draft reports are 

available on line at http://swr.nmfs.noaa.gov/blackab/20100914_BACHD_BIORPT.pdf. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: During 2008–2010, key conservation actions included: 

•	 Reduce interactions between black abalone and anthropogenic sources of elevated sea surface 

temperatures such that rates of withering syndrome transmission and disease-induced mortality may 

slow. 

•	 Help to eliminate illegal take through coordinated enforcement efforts and development of a unified 

outreach and education message. 

•	 Employ safe and cost-effective methods for rebuilding populations through human intervention (e.g., 

translocations, captive propagation, and enhancement). 

Recovery Priority Number: 3 

The recovery priority number for the black abalone is 3. This risk of extinction is believed to be very high 

because of observed declines in abundance throughout more than 50 percent of the species’ range, the 

continued threat of mass mortalities due to withering syndrome along the Central California coast, poaching, 

and sea-surface temperature rise (which has been linked to the expansion and increased transmission rate of 

withering syndrome) due to short- and long-term climate change. The recovery potential for this species is 

moderate given the uncertainty of whether (1) a successful captive breeding program can be used to 

supplement and/or create viable wild populations, and (2) disease resistance among the extant population 

exists and can spread. Another key component to recovering this species is to increase monitoring and 

enforcement efforts and limit anthropogenic impacts in areas where black abalone currently occur and in 

areas where they will be reestablished. The latter requirement may create conflict between the recovery of 

black abalone and economic interests. Activities that may have a negative impact on rocky intertidal habitats 

and coastal water quality could be limited. Commercial and recreational fishing for all species of abalone is 

currently closed in Southern California. However, there is continued pressure to open offshore island areas to 

fishing non-listed abalone species, which could put listed species at greater risk of illegal take even in 

seemingly remote areas (e.g., offshore islands). 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 143 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Elkhorn and Staghorn corals (Acropora palmata and A. cervicornis) 

Date Listed: May 9, 2006 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: A Recovery 

Outline was completed in August 2006 

and a Recovery Team was appointed in 

September 2006. Several meetings of the 

recovery team have been held. The 

Draft recovery plan is being prepared 

and will be made available for public 

comment when finalized. 

Species Status: Elkhorn and staghorn 

corals are branching corals found in 

shallow (<30m) tropical waters 

throughout the wider Caribbean. Studies 

of historical distribution and abundance 

patterns for these two species focus on 

percent coverage, density, and relative size of the corals during three periods: pre-1980, the 1980s and 1990s, 

and recent (since 2000). Few data are present before the 1980 baseline, likely due in part to researchers’ 

tendencies to neglect careful measurement of abundance of ubiquitous species. Both acroporid species 

underwent precipitous declines in the early 1980s throughout their ranges, and this decline has continued, 

albeit at a much slower rate. Although quantitative data on former distribution and abundance are scarce, in 

the few locations where quantitative data are available (e.g., Florida Keys, Dry Tortugas, Belize, Jamaica, and 

the U.S. Virgin Islands), declines in abundance (coverage and colony numbers) are estimated at greater than 

97 percent. 

Threats and Impacts: The major threats to both species are disease, temperature-induced bleaching, ocean 

acidification, and physical damage from hurricanes. These threats are severe, ongoing, and synergistic, and 

have displayed an increasing trend in the recent past. Disease is widespread, episodic, and unpredictable in its 

occurrence and results in high amounts of mortality. Sea-surface temperature and ocean acidity are expected 

to continue rising over time and may exacerbate disease impacts. The number of hurricanes affecting 

Caribbean reefs has increased over the past two decades. The threats to elkhorn and staghorn corals are 

exacerbated further by less severe threats (e.g., nutrients, sedimentation, anchoring, boating), which degrade 

coral condition and increase synergistic stress effects (e.g., bleaching). 

Conservation Actions: The two species were listed approximately 5 years ago. Since then, an ESA 4(d) rule 

and a critical habitat rule have been finalized (October and November 2008, respectively). NMFS has 

supported several projects in the past 2 years: 

•	 Conducted demographic monitoring in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. 

•	 Provided cross-jurisdictional monitoring data to fill demographic data gaps, refine surveys, develop 

maps, facilitate enforcement, and assist recovery through a Species Recovery Grant (ESA section 6 

funding). 

•	 Maintained Geographic Information System acroporid sighting and tracking database. 

•	 Conducted genotype analyses on acroporid samples (e.g., population structure). 

•	 Developed an exhibit-based experiment to investigate acroporid response to ocean acidification. 

•	 Conducted a 2-day workshop to develop NOAA guidance on use of propagation in recovery. 

Elkhorn coral (photo credit: Michael Barnette, NOAA) 

144 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

•	 Developed acroporid field
 

nurseries to complement an 

American Recovery and
 

Reinvestment Act project.
 

•	 Identified acroporid propagule
 

transfer zones (i.e., zones within 

which sexually and/or asexually
 

produced transplants maybe
 

moved safely) and conducted 

spawning
 

observations/collection.
 

•	 Maintained acroporid land-based
 

nursery facility on Curacao.
 

•	 Conducted response and
 

restoration activities in reef sites.
 

•	 Conducted health 

characterization of Vega Baja,
 

Puerto Rico.
 

•	 Sponsored SQUBAnauts to 

participate in collaboration with the Southeast Fisheries Science Center to collect coral gametes for 

crossing and settling. 

•	 Responded to several vessel grounding in Florida, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands to 

reattach injured acroporids and worked with responsible parties to conduct other restoration efforts 

as appropriate. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: The focus of the initial phase of recovery will be the protection of the 

current species distribution, protection of their habitat, and finding additional populations. This will be 

accomplished by using a range of protection tools and will be based on the ecological requirements of the 

species and what is needed to fully protect its habitat. Public awareness through various outreach efforts may 

play a role in generating voluntary protection actions. 

The recovery effort should be based on existing conservation efforts. Specific actions that will be undertaken 

early in the process may include the following: 

•	 Establish large-scale in situ nurseries. 

•	 Identify appropriate regulatory mechanisms for threat abatement. 

•	 Identify the specific areas used by the species requiring habitat conservation and assign priorities to 

each of them. 

•	 Continue research to determine distribution, abundance, habitat requirements, causal factors of 

disease, and genetic status. 

•	 Continue and expand efforts to inform and educate the public about the needs of the species. 

Recovery Priority Number: 7 

Elkhorn and staghorn corals should be assigned a recovery priority of 7, based on assigning the magnitude of 

threat as moderate, recovery potential is low to moderate, and the potential for economic conflicts. 

Staghorn coral (photo credit: NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center) 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 145 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1955195719591961196319651967196919711973197519771979198119831985198719891991199319951997 

White abalone (Haliotis sorenseni) 

Date Listed: May 29, 2001 (66 FR 

29046) 

Legal Status: Endangered 

Recovery Plan Status: The final 

Recovery Plan for white abalone was 

finalized and made available to the public 

via Federal Register notice on October 20, 

2008. 

Species Status: Commercial and 

recreational exploitation of white abalone 

has occurred over the past 50 years in 

California. Landings data indicate that 

catches reached a peak between 1972 

and 1974, and declined to near zero in 

Photo credit: John Butler, Southwest Fisheries Science Center just 5 years (Figure 12). Fisheryindependent surveys conducted in Southern California since that time confirm a 99 percent reduction in 

white abalone density occurred between the 1970s (densities on the order of 2,000 per hectare) and 2008 (< 5 

per hectare). It is believed that overfishing drove white abalone densities to such low levels that, despite 

fishery closure in 1996, adults do not occur in high enough densities to successfully reproduce, resulting in 

repeated recruitment failure and an effective population size near zero. While the most recent estimates of 

total population size in three Southern California locations (Table 6) are higher than those estimated in a 

status review conducted in 2000 (1,600 individuals), the reproductive viability of these populations is still 

Photo credit: John Butler, Southwest Fisheries Science Center 

0 

8000 

16000 

24000 

32000 

40000 

48000 

56000 

64000 

72000 

Kg (Weight In Shell) 

Year 

Figure 12. California commercial catch (weight in shell) of white abalone reported in CDFG bulletins for 

the period 1955-1997. 

146 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

believed to be very low given that most individuals are reproductively isolated from one another (> 2m apart 

from their nearest neighbor; Table 7) and the absence of small individuals (< 9 cm) in extant populations. 

Although commercial fishing for white abalone in Mexico is not occurring, data from surveys conducted in 

October 2006 suggest that populations in Mexico have also declined dramatically in recent years. 

Table 6. Changes over time in preliminary estimates of population size based on density estimates, area surveyed and 

habitat area by depth for Tanner Bank. Surveys were conducted using remotely operated vehicle and multi-beam sonar 

methods from 2002-2010 (J. Butler, unpublished data). 

Depth(m) Tanner Bank 2002 Tanner Bank 2004 Tanner Bank 2008 Tanner Bank 2010 

30-40 2456 ± 893 587 ± 433 1120 ± 344 857 ± 587 

40-50 10226 ± 2558 3141 ± 809 4232 ± 1137 1968 ± 537 

50-60 2685 ± 1644 1332 ± 661 562 ± 376 0 ± 0 

Total 15367 ± 5095 5061 ± 1903 5913 ± 1857 2825 ± 1124 

Table 7. Preliminary nearest neighbor estimates over time for Tanner Bank from 2002-2008 (2010 data are not yet available). These 

data represent the number of individuals (and percent of observed individuals) found less than 2m and greater than 20m from the 

next nearest abalone observed. Also shown are the percentage of individuals observed in groups of 2 or more individuals that are all 

less than 2m apart from one another (J. Butler, unpublished data). 

Year Abalone sighted <2m >20m % in groups 

2002 195 28 (14%) 65 (33%) 6.0 

2004 20 7 (35%) 5 (25%) -

2008 73 12 (16%) 36 (51%) 2.8 

Threats and Impacts: 

•	 Critically low levels of abundance (< 0.1 % of the estimated pre-exploitation population size) 

resulting in increased distance between individuals and repeated recruitment failure during the 1990s 

resulting in a decreasing population trend. 

•	 Inadequate enforcement. 

•	 Reduced genetic diversity resulting in lower reproductive potential and fitness of wild populations. 

•	 Spread of disease through supplementation. 

•	 Illegal harvesting in the United States and Mexico. 

•	 Habitat modification through human activities. 

•	 Habitat modification through environmental/climate change. 

Conservation Actions underway 2008–2010: 

•	 Assessment and monitoring of historic and current white abalone populations along the mainland 

California coast, at the Northern and Southern Channel Islands, and offshore banks via SCUBA or a 

remotely operated vehicle by NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center, Southwest Regional Office, 

and the NOAA Restoration Center, the National Park Service, CDFG, and Occidental College. 

•	 Continued development of captive propagation and enhancement program and associated laboratory 

studies designed to examine the dynamics of reproduction, settlement, disease prevention and 

treatment, and subsequent survival at the University of California Davis’ Bodega Bay Marine 

Laboratory and participating entities through section 6 funding to the CDFG. 

•	 Examination and assessment of future outplanting sites and methodologies by NMFS (Southwest 

Fisheries Science Center, Southwest Regional Office, and the NOAA Restoration Center), the 

National Park Service, and the CDFG partially sponsored through Species Recovery Grant (ESA 

section 6) funding to the CDFG. 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 147 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

•	 Assess and monitor subpopulations of white abalone in the wild in cooperation with the State of 

California, other federal agencies, private organizations, and the Mexican government. 

•	 Identify and characterize existing and potential white abalone habitat through acoustic remote 

sensing technology. 

•	 Protect white abalone populations and their habitat in the wild. 

•	 Continue and expand a captive propagation program for white abalone in California. 

•	 Develop enforcement, public outreach, and education plans. 

Recovery Priority Number: 1 

The recovery priority number for the white abalone is 1. This risk of extinction is believed to be very high 

because of observed declines in abundance, the rarity of clusters that might reproduce, and the absence of 

small individuals in extant populations. The existing animals are reaching their maximum age (approximately 

40 years) and dying without leaving younger animals to take their place. The recovery potential for this 

species is high if captive breeding in a disease-free facility can be achieved and these animals can be used to 

supplement and/or create viable wild populations. Another key component to recovering this species is to 

increase monitoring and enforcement efforts and limit anthropogenic impacts in areas where white abalone 

currently occur and in areas where they will be reestablished. The latter requirement may create conflict 

between the recovery of white abalone and economic interests. Commercial and recreational fishing for all 

species of abalone is currently closed in Southern California. However, there is continued pressure to open 

offshore island areas to fishing non-listed abalone species, which could put listed species at greater risk of 

illegal take even in seemingly remote areas (e.g., offshore islands and banks primarily > 100 feet deep). In 

addition, the recovery of the ESA-threatened Southern sea otter, whose population may be expanding, may 

conflict with the recovery of white abalone. 

148 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MARINE MAMMAL RECOVERY 

Seals and Sea Lions 

Guadalupe Fur Seal (Arctocephalus townsendi) 

Date Listed: December 16, 1985 (50 FR 51252) 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: No recovery plan has been completed 

for the Guadalupe fur seal. 

Species Status: Commercial sealing during the 19th century 

reduced the once-abundant Guadalupe fur seal to near 

extinction in 1894. The size of the population prior to the 

commercial harvests of the 19th century is not known, but 

estimates range from 20,000 to 100,000 animals. Prior to the 

harvest, this species ranged from Monterey Bay, California, to 

the Revillagigedo Islands, Mexico. The capture of two adult 

males at Guadalupe Island in 1928 established the species’ return; however, no individuals were seen again 

until 1954. Guadalupe fur seals pup and breed mainly at Isla Guadalupe, Mexico. The San Benito Archipelago 

was also an important breeding site for Guadalupe fur seals prior to the 1890s. In 1997, a second rookery was 

discovered at Isla Benito del Este, Baja California, and a pup was born at San Miguel Island, California. The 

population is considered to be a single stock because all individuals are recent descendants from one breeding 

colony at Isla Guadalupe. 

Counts of Guadalupe fur seals have been made sporadically since 1954. A few of these counts were made 

during the breeding season, but the majority was made at other times of the year. In general, documented seal 

counts in the literature provided only the total of all Guadalupe fur seals counted (i.e., the counts are not 

separated by age/sex class). The counts made during the breeding season, when the maximum number of 

animals are present at the rookery, were used to examine population growth. These data, described in GalloReynoso (1994), indicated that the population of Guadalupe fur seals has been increasing at an average annual 

growth rate of 13.7 percent. The population was estimated to be about 7,408 animals in 1993. Several 

censuses were conducted during the 2000 and 2006–2008 pupping seasons at the San Benito Islands 

(Aurioles-Gamboa et al. 2010). The animals were classified into five categories: pup, juvenile, subadult male, 

adult female, and adult male. During the 2000 survey, no pups, territorial activity, or nursing behavior was 

observed on San Benitos Este. A census conducted in 2006 located about 80 individuals in the northwest part 

of San Benitos Oeste Island. Only four pups were found; three on San Benito Este and one on San Benito 

Centro. In 2007, 564 animals were found on San Benito Oeste and most of the remaining 1,000 animals were 

on San Benito Este, and a few on San Benito Centro. A total of seven pups were found: four on San Benito 

Oeste and three on San Benito Este. The 2008 surveys for pups were similar to other years; two found on San 

Benito Oeste and six on San Benito Este. The Guadalupe fur seal population at San Benito Islands is 

experiencing an exponential increase (r=18.9%, r2 =.096) in this first phase of population growth (AuriolesGamboa et al. 2010). This is similar to the population growth rate previously estimated by Gallo-Reynoso 

(1994). The relatively rapid growth rate of the population is mainly due to an increase in the number of 

females during the first 2 years and of juveniles during the last 2 years surveyed. The number of males and 

pups has remained fairly constant over time. This first phase of population growth is likely a result of 

emigration of animals from Guadalupe Island. According to Aurioles-Gamboa et al. (2010) the estimated 

population of Guadalupe fur seals on the San Benito Islands Archipelago is as follows: the total estimated 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 149 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

population was 582 in 2000, 1,013 in 2006, 1,566 in 2007, and 2,113 in 2008. Estimates may be considered a 

minimum not only because an unknown portion of the population is found at sea at any given time, but also 

because Guadalupe fur seals inhabit terrain that may hide animals so they could be missed during surveys. 

According to calculations detailed on the IUCN Red List (IUCN 2010), by combining the population 

estimates for the San Benito Islands and Guadalupe Island and factoring in the 13.7 percent increase, there 

are approximately 15,000 to 17,000 animals currently in the entire population. 

Threats and Impacts: No conflicts with commercial fisheries are known to exist at the present time, 

although drift and set gillnet fisheries may cause incidental mortality of Guadalupe fur seals in Mexico and the 

United States from entanglement in marine debris. There is a possibility of negative interactions between 

Guadalupe fur seals and lobster fishermen when the seals occupy inshore areas to breed and haul out, 

particularly if the population continues to increase. In the United States, there have been no reports of 

incidental mortalities or injuries of Guadalupe fur seals in commercial fisheries. No information is available 

for human-caused mortalities or injuries in Mexico; however, similar drift gillnet fisheries for swordfish and 

sharks exist along the entire Pacific coast of Baja California, Mexico, and may take animals from the same 

population. 

NMFS has documented strandings of Guadalupe fur seals in California. Although most of these animals died 

of natural causes, some mortality likely can be attributed to interactions with commercial fisheries and marine 

debris. NMFS documented an increasing number of stranded Guadalupe fur seals on California’s Channel 

Islands and along the central California coast. 

The species feeds around Guadalupe and San Benito Islands and the lower part of the California Current. 

This region is influenced by human population centers with contaminant runoff, extensive oil tanker traffic, 

and offshore oil extraction activity from southern California. Like all fur seals, Guadalupe fur seals are 

vulnerable to oil spills because of their dependence on their thick pelage for thermoregulation. Guadalupe fur 

seals share most of their haul out and breeding sites with California sea lions, which have suffered from viral 

disease outbreaks in the past, and which could be a vector for transmission of diseases from terrestrial 

sources to Guadalupe fur seals, because of their extensive use of coastal areas. Increasing levels of 

anthropogenic noise in the oceans may also be a concern for Guadalupe fur seals. 

Guadalupe fur seals have undergone an extreme genetic bottleneck. This reduction in genetic diversity may 

influence further population expansion. Skewed sex ratios may also have an impact on breeding activity, 

specifically in the San Benito population. The average sex ratio for Guadalupe fur seals on Guadalupe Island 

during 1991–1993, when the population was in an exponential growth phase was 1:1.5 (male:female), while 

the average sex ratio on San Benito Islands in 2000 and during 2006–2008 was 1:24 (male:female) (AuriolesGamboa et al. 2010). 

Conservation Actions: Guadalupe fur seals are listed as a threatened species by the State of California. In 

addition, they are listed as vulnerable on the World Conservation Union Red List and as an Appendix I 

species under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species. The Guadalupe fur seal is 

protected by the Government of Mexico, and the Isla de Guadalupe is now a pinniped sanctuary. As most of 

the range of this species lies in Mexico, NMFS took no conservation actions during 2008–2010. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: As most of the range of this species lies in Mexico, no priority 

recovery actions are needed at this time for the Guadalupe fur seal. 

Recovery Priority Number: 10 

The recovery priority number for the Guadalupe fur seal is designated as 10, due to low magnitude of threat, 

a high recovery potential given that the population is increasing, and the absence of significant conflict with 

economic projects. 

150 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hawaiian Monk Seal (Monachus schauinslandi) 

Date Listed: November 23, 1976 

(41 FR 51611) 

Legal Status: Endangered 

Recovery Plan Status: The first 

Recovery Plan for the Hawaiian Monk 

Seal was completed by NMFS in 

1983. NMFS published a revised 

Recovery Plan in August 2007. 

Species Status: The prolonged and 

steep decline of the Hawaiian monk 

seal population continued through the 

2-year reporting period. Although this 

decline (about 4 percent per year) 

does not bode well for species 

recovery, there are encouraging 

developments to report, including significant growth of the small monk seal sub-population in the main 

Hawaiian Islands and promising advances in juvenile seal survival enhancement, research, and local 

community engagement. 

The best estimate of the current total Hawaiian monk seal population is 1,161 seals—1,048 in the 

Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) and 113 in the main Hawaiian Islands (MHI). The total population 

has been in decline almost continuously since at least the 1950s when beach counts began in the NWHI. 

Since 2001, the total abundance at the six main NWHI sites (French Frigate Shoals, Laysan, Lisianski, Pearl 

and Hermes, Midway, and Kure) has been declining at an average annual rate of about 4.5 percent. However, 

total population decline over the past several years has been moderated to about 4 percent by recent increases 

in the relatively small MHI sub-population. The primary cause of the overall decline appears to be low 

juvenile survival in the NWHI, where only about one of every five seals survives to reproductive age. 

Although Hawaiian monk seals were only rarely reported in the MHI over most of recorded history, since 

1990 an increasing number of seal sightings and births have occurred in the MHI. Sightings in the MHI 

increased from 77 individually identifiable monk seals in 2005 to 113 in 2009. Documented annual births in 

the MHI have increased since the mid-1990s, with 21 births reported in 2009. Together, these observations 

suggest that monk seals are recolonizing the MHI. The small but increasing population of seals in the MHI is 

perhaps the most promising aspect of an otherwise bleak recovery outlook for Hawaiian monk seals, but this 

growing seal population in areas heavily populated by humans is creating a new set of recovery challenges as 

discussed below. 

Threats and Impacts: Threats to Hawaiian monk seal recovery vary between the NWHI and MHI. In the 

NWHI, primary threats include food limitation for juveniles, shark predation on juveniles, entanglement in 

marine debris, male seal aggression on females and juveniles, and shoreline habitat loss. Threats in the MHI 

include disease and various types of human-induced impacts, such as disturbance at haul-out areas, fishery 

interactions, feeding and other interactions that cause habituation to humans, and, most recently, intentional 

killings. 

Photo credit: NMFS 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 151 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Northwestern Hawaiian Islands 

•	 Food limitation for juvenile seals is the dominant factor driving the steep population decline in the 

NWHI. In the NWHI, seals must compete for food with large populations of other apex predators, 

such as large jacks (Carangids) and sharks. “CritterCam” footage shows jacks and sharks aggressively 

following and stealing prey from seals as they forage along the bottom. Such “kleptoparasitism” 

appears to be a serious impediment to the foraging success of juvenile seals, but less so for older 

seals. Shifts in ecosystem productivity, caused by global climate change and/or cyclical changes, may 

also be contributing to food limitation. 

•	 Shark predation is also contributing to the decline in the NWHI. Predation by Galapagos sharks on 

pre-weaned or recently weaned seal pups at French Frigate Shoals has become a major cause of 

shark-related injury and mortality. 

•	 Hawaiian monk seals have one of the highest documented entanglement rates of any pinniped 

species, and marine debris and derelict fishing gear are chronic forms of pollution affecting monk 

seal habitat in the NWHI. The number of monk seals found entangled has not changed, nor have 

accumulation rates of marine debris in the NWHI. 

•	 A significant cause of female and juvenile monk seal mortality and overall population decline during 

the 1980s and early 1990s was injury and death caused by aggression from multiple male seals 

(especially at Laysan, Lisianski, and French Frigate Shoals). This threat continues to be a concern, 

even though it tends to be episodic and geographically limited. 

•	 The loss of terrestrial habitat is a significant issue in the NWHI, which are mostly low-lying atolls 

subject to beach loss from storm erosion and sea level rise. Some habitat loss, such as the subsidence 

of Whaleskate Island at French Frigate Shoals, has already been observed, and sea level rise over the 

longer term may threaten a large portion of the resting and pupping habitat in the NWHI. 

Main Hawaiian Islands 

•	 Human-caused impacts (disturbance, injury, and death) are the primary threat to the small but 

growing population of Hawaiian monk seals in the MHI. Beaches that are popular for human 

recreation are also increasingly used by monk seals for hauling out (resting) and molting. Female 

monk seals are also increasingly pupping on popular recreational beaches. These pupping events 

entail mother-pup pairs remaining on the beach to nurse for up to 7 weeks, during which time they 

are particularly vulnerable to human disturbance. 

•	 Due to recent fishing restrictions, hookings and entanglements in active fishing gear have become 

virtually nonexistent in the NWHI. However, in the MHI, the growing seal population has led to 

increased fishery interactions. Over the past 2 years, several seals have required removal of embedded 

recreational fishing hooks. Twelve hookings were reported in 2009, and at least two seals drowned in 

lay gillnets over the reporting period. 

•	 Intentional feeding and/or other direct interaction, such as swimming with juvenile seals, has recently 

become a serious concern for the MHI population. These human-seal interactions have increased 

over the past 2 years, and relocation of “conditioned” seals to remote locations has been required in 

at least three cases. 

•	 Recent MHI monk seal deaths have heightened concern about monk seal exposure to diseases not 

previously encountered, such as leptospirosis and toxoplasmosis. The lack of antibodies in monk 

seals to these diseases makes them extremely vulnerable to potential infection. At least two seals died 

over the reporting period where toxoplasmosis was identified as the most likely cause of death. 

•	 Finally, intentional killing of seals appears to be a growing problem in the MHI. Over the past 2 

years, at least three seals have died from apparent gunshots, and foul play could not be ruled out as 

the cause of death for at least three other seals. Although these cases remain under investigation, they 

are probably linked at least partially to growing hostility toward monk seals by fishermen upset about 

the seals’ real and perceived impacts on fishing activities, including seals taking fish from nets and 

lines. 

152 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Conservation Actions: During FY 2009 and 2010, enhanced federal funding has supported key 

conservation actions targeting four overriding priorities specified in the revised Hawaiian Monk Seal 

Recovery Plan: 

1.	 Enhance survival of juvenile seals born in the NWHI 

•	 Initiated programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for new survival enhancement and 

research activities. 

•	 Removed and mitigated sharks preying on pups at French Frigate Shoals. 

•	 Successfully conducted deworming trials on juvenile seals at Laysan Island. 

•	 Continued essential population monitoring at six NWHI atoll breeding sites. 

•	 Conducted new winter camps for population assessment at key NWHI sites. 

•	 Developed comprehensive strategy and decision system for new temporary translocation 

program to increase juvenile female seal survival in NWHI. 

2.	 Improve management of seals and reduce human-seal interactions in the MHI 

•	 Expanded response and rescue program, engaging over 400 trained volunteers in thousands of 

responses per year in partnership with Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources, 

NOAA’s Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, U.S. Coast Guard, University of Hawaii Hilo, 

and various non-governmental organizations—funded in part via an ESA Species Recovery 

Grant. 

•	 Initiated Native Hawaiian liaison and community liaison programs, mobilizing new support from 

several local community leaders on five islands. 

•	 Used new cell phone telemetry technology for detailed tracking of seal foraging behaviors, 

movements, and habitat use—funded in part by Department of Defense-Navy. 

•	 Completed study to define baseline diet and foraging behavior of MHI seals. 

•	 Conducted enhanced population surveys to better quantify MHI seal population. 

•	 Partnered with Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources to increase fishermen’s 

awareness and promote seal-friendly fishing practices—funded in part via an ESA Species 

Recovery Grant. 

•	 Developed new outreach products including brochures, fact sheets, web pages, and a 10-minute 

documentary on the value of monk seals in Hawaiian culture—funded in part by Hawaii 

Tourism Authority. 

•	 Conducted workshop on methods for aversive conditioning and behavior modification to 

prevent and mitigate “habituated” and/or “conditioned” seals. 

•	 Initiated response to petition to revise ESA critical habitat designation to consider including 

habitat in MHI. 

3.	 Prevent and mitigate disease 

•	 Conducted expert external review of Health and Disease Program. 

•	 Facilitated development of captive care facilities at various locations in partnership with the 

Marine Mammal Center, Waikiki Aquarium, Sea Life Park, National Energy Laboratory of 

Hawaii Authority, and others. 

•	 Initiated vaccination trials on captive monk seals and surrogates. 

•	 Continued health screening of free-ranging MHI seals to determine disease prevalence and 

initiated research to determine MHI contaminant load and impacts. 

4.	 Effectively administer recovery and research programs and leverage federal funds 

•	 Held annual Hawaiian monk seal recovery team meetings and responded to team 

recommendations, and expanded team membership to include local stakeholders. 

•	 Hired full-time recovery coordinator, assistant recovery coordinator, survival enhancement 

ecologist, and additional research staff. 

•	 Partnered extensively with State of Hawaii, Department of Defense, U.S. Coast Guard, NOAA’s 

National Ocean Service, and other government agencies and non-governmental organizations in 

conducting numerous actions above. 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 153 
 

 

 

 

 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: The conservation actions listed in priorities 1 through 4 above—most 

of which were made possible with increased federal funding starting in FY 2009—should be continued at 

least over the next 5 years. In particular, the following are essential: 

•	 Ensure the Environmental Impact Statement and permitting processes for new enhancement and 

research are completed to allow for full implementation of an integrated suite of survival 

enhancement activities for juvenile seals in the NWHI. 

•	 Ensure that new and existing MHI management and research activities continue to foster nascent 

Native Hawaiian support, enhance promising government and non-government partnerships, and 

mitigate animosity toward monk seals within the local fishing community. 

Recovery Priority Number: 1 

The Hawaiian monk seal has a recovery priority number of 1 due to a high magnitude of threats, high 

recovery potential, and the potential for economic conflicts while implementing recovery actions. The 

magnitude of threat is considered to be high based on the population decline that has persisted for over 20 

years. Although our understanding of the most serious threat of food limitation in the NWHI is improving, 

the recovery potential is also high because the mitigation of other critical threats are known and in place or 

are in the process of being implemented. For example, the species’ current core habitat in the NWHI is wellprotected and, if foraging conditions improve, recovery can be expected. In addition, the recovery potential 

can be considered high because the MHI represent a large amount of under-occupied habitat, which could 

support a larger population of seals if promising new management actions are given time and continued 

support to reach their full potential. Finally, potential economic conflict exists in the MHI with fishery 

interactions, coastal development, and increased tourism. 

154 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Steller Sea Lion (Eumetopias jubatus) – Eastern DPS 

Date Listed: April 5, 1990 (55 FR 12645), original listing 

of threatened status for entire species; eastern DPS listed 

as a separate DPS effective June 4, 1997 

(62 FR 24345) 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: The first Recovery Plan for 

Steller Sea Lions was completed in December 1992. A 

revised draft plan was released for public review and 

comment in May 2006 and released in May 2007 (72 FR 

28473). The Final Revised Recovery Plan was published in 

March 2008. 

Species Status: In 1997, NMFS reclassified Steller sea 

lions as two distinct population segments under the ESA, 

based on biological information collected since the species 

was originally listed as threatened in 1990. The Steller sea 

lion population segment west of 144°W longitude (a line 

near Cape Suckling, Alaska) was recognized as the western 

distinct population segment and reclassified as 

endangered. The threatened listing was maintained for the 

remainder of the U.S. Steller sea lion population—the eastern DPS—which includes sea lions east of Cape 

Suckling (144°W longitude) from California north through Southeast Alaska (Figure 13). However, sea lions 

are known to move across this boundary and may forage, rest, etc., in portions of the range of the other DPS. 

Currently 13 rookeries and about 85 major haulout sites are within the breeding range of the eastern DPS, 

extending from Cape Fairweather, Alaska, to Año Nuevo Island off central California. Available data indicate 

that the population trend in recent years at 12 of these rookeries is either increasing or stable at relatively high 

levels. While Año Nuevo Island is the southernmost active rookery (37°06’N), some pups were born at 

San Miguel Island (34°05’N) until 1981. Data indicate that, overall, the eastern DPS increased at over 3 

percent per year between 1982 and 2009, more than doubling in Southeast Alaska, British Columbia, and 

Oregon. 

Photo credit: L. Fritz, NOAA National Marine Mammal Lab 

Figure 13. Steller sea lion range and rookeries. 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 155 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Within the eastern DPS, the overall conditions for Steller sea lions appear to be most favorable in the 

northern portion of their range. At present, Southeast Alaska and British Columbia together account for 

nearly 82 percent of total pup production. All four rookeries founded in the past 25 years are located in the 

northern part of the breeding range of this DPS, in the northern portions of Southeast Alaska. In the past 2 

decades, nearly all the increase in pup numbers in the eastern DPS has been at newer rookeries. In addition to 

the five rookeries in Southeast Alaska, Steller sea lions used 30 major haulouts, plus several other sites for 

brief periods each year. The use of these sites is probably related to the availability of seasonally abundant 

prey. 

The southernmost portion of the range of the eastern DPS of Steller sea lions has contracted and exhibits an 

exception to the overall positive trend of the eastern DPS. The southernmost sites appear to have stabilized, 

but at levels far below their historical maximums. 

Threats and Impacts: In the 2008 Steller Sea Lion Recovery Plan, NMFS concluded that the most 

important protection for this population has likely been prohibitions on lethal takes, and that no further 

substantial threats are evident at present. NMFS did note that the most likely threats are development, 

increased disturbance and habitat destruction, increases in magnitude or distribution of commercial or 

recreation fisheries, and environmental change. 

However, rookeries tend to be located at remote sites such as isolated offshore reefs and islands unsuitable 

for development. Many rookeries are in protected areas such as parks, refuges, wilderness areas, and 

ecological reserves, where future on-land development is unlikely. NMFS is working with many partners to 

obtain further data on factors that now contribute, or could contribute in the future, to Steller sea lion injury 

and mortality throughout the range, including in the range of the eastern DPS. 

Recently, biologists with the NMFS Alaska Region noted an increase in sea lion carcasses found in Southeast 

Alaska (particularly the northern region of Southeast Alaska) between 2009 and 2010, in contrast to previous 

years. Between 2009 and 2010, a total of 69 Steller stranded sea lions in Southeast Alaska were reported to the 

NMFS Alaska Region stranding program; 55 of these animals were mortalities (24 in 2009, 31 in 2010). While 

the cause of death of most of these sea lions is as yet undetermined, six of the mortality cases involved 

human interaction. NMFS is examining the pattern of these mortalities further, and samples collected from 

some of the individuals may shed light on their cause of death. 

In addition, NMFS noted in the Recovery Plan that impacts related to entanglement in fishing gear and 

marine debris appear to be affecting sea lions in substantial numbers. Research conducted during 2000–2007 

by biologists from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game documented that the incidence of entanglement 

of Steller sea lion in marine debris in Southeast Alaska and in northern British Columbia “contrasts sharply” 

and is much higher than the incidence reported in an assessment of entangled Steller sea lions conducted in 

the Aleutian Islands in 1985. During the Aleutian study, only 11 Steller sea lions, or 0.07 percent of the 

counted adult population, showed evidence of entanglement with debris. Identifiable materials included trawl 

net or twine and none were observed to be entangled in packing bands or other materials. 

In contrast, in a more recent study in northern parts of the range of the eastern DPS, the researchers reported 

an entanglement incidence of 0.26 percent (SD = 0.0064, n = 69 sites). They documented 386 individuals of 

all age classes as being either entangled in marine debris or having ingested fishing gear. In the recent study in 

the range of the eastern DPS, the most common neck-entangling material was packing bands (54%), followed 

by rubber bands (30%), net (7%), rope (7%), and monofilament line (2%). They documented ingestion of 

kinds of fishing gear, including salmon fishery flashers (80%), longline gear (12%), hook and line (4%), 

spinners/spoons (2%), and bait hooks (2%). The researchers reported that neck entanglements are especially 

lethal to animals that become entangled at a young age. Their recommendations included additional effort to 

develop ways to disentangle the animals safely, further document the rates of entanglements concurrent with 

156 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ongoing research projects, and obtain necropsies on stranded carcasses. They concluded that the incidence of 

entanglement and population level effects calculated for Steller sea lions is likely to be underestimated. 

Conservation Actions: From 2008–2010, a number of major conservation actions related to this DPS were 

accomplished or initiated, including: 

•	 Completion and release of a draft Biological Opinion following consultation under section 7 of the 

ESA related to the effects of the Authorization of Groundfish fisheries under the Fishery 

Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Strait/Aleutian Islands Management Area, the Gulf 

of Alaska and the State of Alaska Parallel Groundfish Fisheries. 

•	 Initiation of a status review under section 4 of the ESA for the eastern DPS of Steller sea lions. 

Following initiation of this status review, NMFS received two petitions to delist this species. In 

response to these petitions, NMFS reviewed available information and published a 90-day finding 

indicating that substantial information exists such that the petitioned action may be warranted. 

NMFS is continuing its comprehensive status review to determine whether the delisting of the DPS 

is warranted. A finding is required on this issue within 12 months of receipt of the first petition 

(August 2011). 

•	 Continued aerial surveys throughout the range of the Steller sea lion in Alaska to evaluate recent 

trends of non-pups in this population. 

•	 Aerial surveys in the Southern part of the range to ensure the availability of recent trend data in the 

ongoing status review. 

•	 Continued research on Steller sea lion foraging ecology, habitat use, status, health, and predation 

threat. 

•	 Funded the Makah Tribe and state partners to conduct research on Steller sea lion distribution, 

branded pup survival and vital rates, and prey competition between Steller and California sea lions 

through the Species Recovery Grants to Tribes Program. Issuance of a cooperative agreement 

between NMFS and the Alaska Sea Otter and Steller Sea Lion Commission for Steller sea lion– 

related outreach, education, and bio-sampling activities. This cooperative agreement enabled the 

Commission and NMFS to work together on key outreach and education projects, biosampling, and 

collaborative research activities on Steller sea lions throughout many parts of their range in Alaska. 

Funds from this cooperative agreement enabled the development of newsletters and other 

publications focused on Alaska Native marine mammal activities, as well as Steller sea lion research, 

management, and regulation. Funds were also used to hold public forums to enhance the 

involvement of Alaska Natives and the public in marine mammal management in Alaska. This 

cooperative agreement is ongoing. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: The top-priority recovery actions for this species are to (1) complete 

the ongoing status review to determine whether delisting of this species is warranted and (2) develop a postdelisting monitoring plan that would guide monitoring activities for 10 years if the species is delisted. Key 

components of a monitoring plan, as identified in the 2008 Recovery Plan, include: 

•	 Continue to estimate population trends (biennial or triennial) for pups and non-pups. 

•	 Closely monitor trend and status of rookeries and haul-outs at southern end of range (California). 

•	 Ensure protection of rookery and haul-out sites (through state, federal, or private measures) to 

ensure the continued use of these sites for pupping, breeding, attending young, and resting. Research 

and monitoring plans should be in place for all projects having a high probability of negatively 

impacting sea lions to ensure these activities do not result in harm to sea lions or their habitat. 

•	 Pursue further conservation actions through federal, state, and local governments to ensure fisheries 

and other human actions do not adversely affect sea lion prey resources. 

•	 Maintain marine habitats, particularly in regard to prey populations, through appropriate fisheries 

management and control of contaminants. 

•	 Monitor the magnitude and distribution of commercial and recreational fisheries to ensure the 

continued protection of important sea lion prey resources. 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 157 
 

 

 

 

 

 

•	 Monitor for unusual mortality events via a stranding network including impacts from fishing gear and 

other human-related materials (e.g., plastic bands, discarded fishing nets, and flashers). 

•	 Work with partners to reduce the magnitude of human-caused mortality related to entanglement in 

marine debris, incidental take in fisheries, illegal shooting, research, and struck and lost animals 

during subsistence hunting. 

•	 Conduct additional research on the genetic structure of the eastern population. 

•	 Monitor direct takes and incidental takes in fisheries. 

•	 Monitor frequency and severity of Steller sea lion interactions with humans in ports and harbors. 

•	 Monitor impacts of recreational and commercial viewing operations. 

•	 Monitor impacts of research activities. 

•	 Monitor for disease and health related to contaminants. 

•	 Monitor predation as a significant source of mortality. 

Based on new information from published studies regarding rates of entanglement of eastern DPS Steller sea 

lions in southeast Alaska and northern British Columbia, it is important that Steller sea lion population 

monitoring occurs to quantify rates, types of gear/debris, and outcomes of entanglements. Such monitoring is 

needed to assess the impact of marine debris on the vital rates and population trends. Collaborative actions 

are recommended between NMFS, research partners, and the fishing industry to develop ways to reduce 

Steller sea lion fishery interactions. Management action should include outreach and education to raise 

awareness of entanglements and to encourage measures to eliminate the use of packing bands and other 

entangling materials. 

Other recovery actions that have been identified and should be implemented include the following: 

•	 Research and/or monitoring programs should be put into place to oversee activities in these areas 

that have the potential to negatively impact Steller sea lions. Human disturbance has increased in 

previously remote areas. Little is known about the potential impacts from changes to the physical 

environment, disturbance due to vessel traffic, or tourism-related activities. Because of lack of 

information, it is not possible to quantify these threats. However, the potential threat from increased 

human disturbance highlights the need to keep regulatory mechanisms in place to protect sea lions. 

•	 Other actions to protect haul-out and pupping areas could provide substantial insurance against 

future impacts from development and anthropogenic disturbance. These actions include reaching an 

agreement with the State of Alaska regarding fishery management plans to minimize the take of 

Steller sea lions, and working with the State to ensure that their future actions will comply with the 

ESA and Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). 

Recovery Priority Number: 10 

The recovery priority number for the eastern DPS is 10 due to a low magnitude of threat, high recovery 

potential, and no significant potential for economic conflict. 

158 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Steller Sea Lion – Western DPS (Eumetopias jubatus) 

Date Listed: Original listing of threatened 

status for entire species April 5, 1990 (55 FR 

12645; see also, 55 FR 13488, April 10, 1990; 

55 FR 49204, November 26, 1990; and, 55 

FR 50005, December 4, 1990); the western 

DPS was listed as endangered as a separate 

DPS effective June 4, 1997 (62 FR 24345; 

published May 5, 1997) 

Legal Status: Endangered 

Recovery Plan Status: The first Recovery 

Plan for Steller Sea Lions was completed in 

December 1992. A revised draft plan was 

released for public review and comment in 

May 2006 and released on May 2007 (72 FR 

28473). The Final Revised Recovery Plan was released in March 2008. 

Species Status: The western DPS of Steller sea lion breeds on rookeries in Alaska (the U.S. portion of the 

western DPS) from Prince William Sound (144°W) west through the Aleutian Islands and in Russia on the 

Kamchatka Peninsula, Kuril Islands and the Sea of Okhotsk. Steller sea lions use 38 rookeries and hundreds 

of haul-out sites within the range of the western DPS in Alaska. The first reported counts of Steller sea lions 

in Alaska, made in 1956–1960, totaled approximately 140,000 for the Gulf of Alaska and Aleutian Islands 

regions. 

The endangered western DPS of Steller sea lion has declined by almost 90 percent throughout its range, 

reaching its smallest size in 2000. Prior to the 1990s, the primary causes of the decline may have been 

commercial harvests of Steller sea lions, entanglement of juvenile Steller sea lions in commercial fishing gear, 

and intentional shooting by fishermen. However, since 1991 these effects have been nearly eliminated, yet the 

overall population in the western portion of the species’ range is not increasing in abundance at a rate similar 

to that observed for the eastern portion of the species’ range. 

Steller sea lion populations in parts of the Alaskan range of the western DPS may have begun to drop 

between the late 1950s and the mid 1970s. Surveys showed a major decline in numbers first detected in the 

eastern Aleutian Islands in the mid-1970s. The decline spread eastward to the central Gulf of Alaska during 

the late 1970s and early 1980s and westward to the central and western Aleutian Islands during the early and 

mid-1980s. From the mid-1970s to 1990 the overall western DPS in Alaska declined by over 70 percent, with 

the largest declines in the Aleutian Islands (76 to 84%) and smaller declines in the Gulf of Alaska (23 to 71%). 

Approximately 110,000 adult and juvenile Steller sea lions were counted in the Kenai-Kiska region in 1976– 

1979, and by 1985 and 1989 counts had dropped to about 68,000 and 25,000, respectively. 

Between 1990 and 2000, trend site counts continued to decline, although more slowly than in the 1980s, 

resulting in a total reduction of almost 90 percent since the 1950s and 83 percent since the 1970s. Sub-area 

declines from 1990 to 2000 had a different pattern than in the 1970–1990 period, with smaller changes in the 

center of the Alaskan range and larger declines at the edges. The average rate of decline between 1990 and 

2000 for all trend sites in the western DPS was 5.1 percent per year. Counts of adult and juvenile Steller sea 

lions at all trend sites within the range of the western DPS in Alaska increased 12 percent between 2000 and 

2008, and most of this increase occurred in the first 4 years. Non-pup surveys conducted in 2006 and 2007 

did not result in complete assessments of the population. 

Photo credit: L. Fritz, NOAA National Marine Mammal Lab 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 159 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the core of the western DPS range in Alaska (Kenai-Kiska), all of the 2000–2008 increase of 10 percent 

occurred between 2000 and 2004. In the larger Kenai-Attu region, counts increased 7 percent in the first 4 

years, but then dropped slightly between 2004 and 2008. Consequently, the overall increase of 3 percent 

observed between 2004 and 2008 in the western DPS in Alaska was due entirely to a 35 percent higher count 

in the eastern Gulf of Alaska. 

Russia and Asia 

Steller sea lions use 10 rookeries and approximately 77 haul-out sites within the range of the western DPS in 

Russia. Analysis of available data collected in the former Soviet Union indicates that in the 1960s the Steller 

sea lion population totaled about 27,000 (including pups), most of which were in the Kuril Islands. Between 

1969 and 1989, numbers of adult and juvenile Steller sea lions at major rookeries and haul-outs in the Kuril 

Islands declined 74 percent. By 1990, the total Russian population had declined by approximately 50 percent 

to about 13,000 (including pups). Between the early 1990s and 2004, the Russia and Asian population 

increased slowly to about 16,000 animals, and since then it is thought to have increased to about 25,000 

animals. The Steller sea lion is listed as an endangered species under Russian legislation. 

Threats and Impacts: For the western DPS, the first slowing of the decline began in the 1990s, suggesting 

that the management measures implemented in the early 1990s may have been effective in reducing some 

anthropogenic effects (e.g., shooting, harassment, and incidental take). The apparent relative population 

stability or slight decline observed in recent years is correlated with comprehensive fishery management 

measures implemented since the late 1990s. However, because of the lack of recovery of this population and 

continued decline in some large portions of its range, there is concern that potentially high threats to the 

recovery of this population remain. Most of the 61 recovery actions in the original 1992 recovery plan were 

accomplished to a substantial degree with one exception—the development of international conservation 

agreements. Much of the conservation effort under the 1992 recovery plan was focused on eliminating the 

most direct and certain causes of decline (e.g., shooting and incidental take). These efforts resulted in the 

following: 

•	 Substantial reduction in disturbance of important rookeries and haul-outs. 

•	 Substantial reduction in the incidental catch of Steller sea lions in commercial fishing operations, 

particularly the groundfish trawl fishery. 

•	 Significant efforts to reduce intentional take by prohibiting shooting at or near Steller sea lions. 

•	 Intensive research to better describe the threats to Steller sea lions and to provide management with 

options for recovery actions. 

•	 Potential reduction in the competitive interactions between Steller sea lions and commercial fisheries 

for pollock, Atka mackerel, and Pacific cod in Alaska. 

•	 Additional information on the status, foraging ecology, and survivorship of Steller sea lions. 

An extensive research program increased NMFS understanding of the relative impacts of threats that 

potentially impede the recovery of Steller sea lions. For the western DPS, NMFS concluded that the 

following threats are now relatively minor: (1) Alaska Native subsistence harvest, (2) illegal shooting, (3) 

entanglement in marine debris, (4) disease, and (5) disturbance from vessel traffic and scientific research. 

Uncertainty remains about incidental take by fisheries (believed to be low). The threat posed by predation by 

killer whales remains controversial, especially within stakeholder communities. Considerable concern remains 

about the impacts of fisheries and environmental variability, including climate change. 

Conservation Actions: From October 1, 2008, to September 30, 2010, the major conservation actions 

related to this DPS was the completion and release of a draft Biological Opinion following consultation under 

section 7 of the ESA related to the effects of the authorization of groundfish fisheries in the Bering Sea and 

Aleutian Islands region under the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian 

Islands Management Area, and on the authorization of groundfish fisheries in the Gulf of Alaska under the 

Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska, including the prosecution of parallel 

groundfish fisheries in Alaska state waters. This opinion concluded that the action, as proposed, is likely to 

160 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

jeopardize the continued existence of the western DPS of Steller sea lion and adversely modify the designated 

critical habitat for the western DPS of Steller sea lion. It included one Reasonable and Prudent Alternative, 

which has multiple management measures to avoid the likelihood of the groundfish fisheries jeopardizing the 

continued existence of the endangered western DPS of Steller sea lion or adversely modifying its designated 

critical habitat. Together these measures are designed to ameliorate adverse effects of removing prey biomass 

and avoid competition in the short and long term. 

Other important conservation actions included implementation of actions identified or directly consistent 

with recovery actions identified in the recovery plan. Such activities included: 

•	 Continued aerial surveys throughout the range of the Steller sea lion in Alaska to enable evaluation of 

recent trends of non-pups in this endangered population. 

•	 Continued coordination of Steller sea lion research. 

•	 Implementation of a new policy and guidance document for the issuance of research permits for 

Steller sea lions and northern fur seals following section 7 consultation and NEPA evaluation. 

•	 Continuation of high-quality research on Steller sea lion foraging ecology, habitat use, status, health, 

and predation threat. 

•	 Continuation of cooperative research with Russian scientists on Steller sea lions in Russian waters. 

•	 Continuation of work under co-management agreements for northern fur seals and Steller sea lions 

between NMFS and the Aleut Community of St. George Island and the Aleut Community of St. Paul 

Island. 

•	 Funded the Aleut Community of St. Paul Island to investigate Steller sea lion diet and assess levels of 

contaminants that may be detrimental to the animals and subsistence users through the Species 

Recovery Grants to Tribes Program. Continuation of cooperation between NMFS and the Aleut 

Marine Mammal Commission for the conservation and management of all marine mammal 

subsistence species, with particular focus on Steller sea lions and harbor seals in November 2006. 

•	 Issuance of a cooperative agreement between NMFS and the Alaska Sea Otter and Steller Sea Lion 

Commission for outreach, education, and bio-sampling related activities in the breeding range of the 

western DPS and eastern DPS. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: Priority actions are identified in the 2008 Recovery Plan and in the 

2010 Groundfish Biological Opinion. They include: 

•	 Continued trend monitoring in the abundance of pups and non-pups. 

•	 Research on adult female body condition, health, foraging, reproduction, and movements in the 

western part of the range in Alaska to better evaluate factors that may be impeding recovery. 

•	 Research on foraging ecology of all population segments in the western and central Aleutians. 

•	 Maintain or improve management actions until substantive evidence demonstrates that these
 

measures can be reduced without limiting recovery.
 

•	 Design and implement an adaptive management program to evaluate fishery conservation measures. 

•	 Develop a more detailed recovery task implementation plan, including a research implementation 

plan, to include a comprehensive ecological and conceptual framework that integrates and further 

prioritizes numerous recovery actions. 

Recovery Priority Number: 5 

NMFS increased the recovery priority number for the western DPS from 7 in 2008 to 5 in 2010. Steller sea 

lions in significant portions of the range are still in very sharp decline and some other subregions are not 

recovering, and the recent trend of the population overall is not significantly different from zero. NMFS 

believes they have a moderate to high magnitude of threats depending on which area of the range is of 

concern, moderate recovery potential, and a substantial potential for economic conflict in some areas. 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 161 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Whales 

Beluga Whale (Delphinapterus leucas) – Cook Inlet DPS 

Date Listed: October 22, 2008 (73 FR 

62919) and proposed critical habitat (74 FR 

63080, December 2, 2009) 

Legal Status: Endangered 

Recovery Plan Status: Recovery plan is 

currently under development. NMFS has 

prepared a final Conservation Plan for this 

DPS that serves many of the functions of a 

recovery plan and provides interim recovery 

measures until a recovery plan is available. 

NMFS published a notice of intent to 

prepare a recovery plan for the Cook Inlet 

beluga whale (75 FR 4528) on January 28, 2010. The Recovery Plan Team, consisting of 13 Scientific Panel 

members and 18 Stakeholder Panel members, has held several meetings. 

Species Status: The endangered Cook Inlet beluga whale population is not showing recovery, according to 

the 2010 annual survey and population estimate conducted by NMFS. The 2010 abundance estimate is 340 

animals in 2010, up from the 2009 abundance estimate of 321 belugas, but confirms an annual decline of 1.1 

percent (Figure 14). No reliable estimate of historic abundance exists, although NMFS has used partial survey 

data from the State of Alaska to estimate the carrying capacity to be 1,300 whales. Despite measures to 

regulate subsistence harvests by Alaskan Natives (only five beluga whales have been harvested since 1999), 

the population is still in decline. An extinction risk analysis completed in 2008 projected a 29 percent 

probability of extinction within 100 years for the Cook Inlet beluga. 

Photo credit: U.S. Navy 

0 

200 

400 

600 

800 

1000 

1200 

1400 

1600 

1993199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008200920102011

Number of belugas 

Year 

Figure 14. Population of Cook Inlet beluga whales, 1993–2011. 

The small, isolated population of Cook Inlet beluga whales has had a distinct contraction in range over the 

past three decades (Figures 15, 16, and 17). Significant changes in beluga whale distribution are evident across 

three periods: 1978–1979 (the earliest well-documented data); 1993–1997 (during the recorded decline in 

abundance); and 1998–2008 (when hunting was regulated and recovery was anticipated). The center of the 

162 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

summer range for beluga whales contracted northeastward into upper Cook Inlet from the 1970s to the 1990s 

and continued into the 2000s with a longitudinal shift east towards Anchorage (the largest city and port in 

Alaska) occurring between the 1990s and 2000s (Rugh et al. 2010). 

Figure 16. Delphinapterus leucas. 

Areas occupied by beluga whales in 

Cook Inlet, Alaska, in June/July 

1993–1997. 

Figure 17. Delphinapterus leucas. 

Areas occupied by beluga whales in 

Cook Inlet, Alaska, in June 1998– 

2008. 

Figure 15. Delphinapterus leucas.
 

Areas occupied by beluga whales in 

Cook Inlet, Alaska, in June/July
 

1978–1979. The distribution of
 

beluga whales around each central
 

location for each period was 

calculated at 1 SD (capturing ca. 

68% of the whales) or 2 SD (95%).
 

Threats and Impacts: The Cook Inlet beluga population may be affected by myriad natural and human 

impacts. Natural threats include stranding events, predation, parasitism and disease, and environmental 

change. Potential human impacts include poaching, fishing, pollution, vessel traffic, coastal development, 

noise, oil and gas activities, and scientific research. Tourism and whale watching is a projected human-induced 

threat for this population, while subsistence harvest is a past threat which was regulated in 1999. Only five 

whales were harvested in 1999–2007, and no harvest is allowed between 2008–2012. 

Stranding events, reduced prey, and noise are threats that have been identified by NMFS as having both a 

high likelihood of occurrence and a high potential impact to species recovery in the next 5 years. The 

frequent use of shallow nearshore and estuarine habitats makes beluga whales particularly prone to threats 

from human activities. 

Conservation Actions: During 2008–2010, key conservation actions included: 

•	 Final Cook Inlet beluga whale subsistence harvest Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. 

•	 Final regulations that establish long-term limits on the maximum number of Cook Inlet beluga 

whales that may be taken by Alaska Natives for subsistence and handicraft purposes. 

•	 Final Cook Inlet Beluga Whale Conservation Plan. 

•	 Response to Cook Inlet beluga strandings. 

•	 Development of a long term enforcement plan by NOAA Office of Law Enforcement, 

encompassing traditional enforcement methods and Community Oriented Policing and Problem 

Solving. 

•	 Coordination among agencies and project applicants to analyze activities under NEPA, the MMPA, 

and ESA. 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 163 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

•	 Development of an interagency area oil spill contingency plan. 

•	 Development of noise guidelines to minimize the likelihood of adverse impact to belugas or their 

habitat. 

•	 Restrictions on research permits whereby animal capture is not allowed to reduce the possibility of 

injury or mortality. 

•	 Completion of an ESA Section 6 Agreement in 2009, which allows the State of Alaska to compete 

for beluga-specific research and management funds. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

•	 Continue with the annual abundance surveys in June and calf index surveys in July. 

•	 Continue to respond to stranded (alive and dead) beluga whales. 

•	 Identify prey quality, quantity, preference, and availability in summer and winter. 

•	 Identify beluga whale groups and family through photo identification and genetics. 

•	 Model habitats. 

•	 Use acoustic tools to understand beluga behaviors, distribution, and habitat needs. 

•	 Identify disease and parasite types related to Cook Inlet belugas. 

•	 Conduct risk assessment by age, gender, and reproductive status. 

•	 Investigate and mitigate noise pollution, chemical and biological pollution, and introduction of novel 

biota (disease and parasites). 

•	 Protect habitat from development. 

•	 Ensure prey availability, study impacts to prey by fisheries. 

•	 Conduct studies to compare a thriving beluga population (Bristol Bay) with the declining Cook Inlet 

beluga population. 

Recovery Priority Number: 2 

The magnitude of threats for this species is considered high, as the results of a NMFS population viability 

model place the risk of extinction to be very high in the near future. In addition, the magnitude of threat is 

considered high based on the fact that the subsistence harvest was regulated in 1999 and yet the population 

continues to decline annually at 1.1 percent (NMFS 2010). The second criterion, recovery potential, can be 

considered high because NMFS understanding of the most serious threat to Cook Inlet beluga whales, 

subsistence harvest, has been regulated, while genetic viability remains healthy and the calving rate appears 

normal. The third criterion reflects the ESA’s requirement that recovery priority be given to those species that 

are, or may be, in conflict with development projects or other forms of economic activity. There are conflicts 

associated with Cook Inlet belugas and ongoing and proposed new activities, as the population shares its 

range with the most populated and industrialized region of Alaska. 

164 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Blue Whale (Balaenoptera musculus) 

Date Listed: June 2, 1970 (35 FR 

18319) 

Legal Status: Endangered 

Recovery Plan Status: A recovery 

plan for the blue whale was completed 

in July 1998. 

Species Status: Blue whales are found 

in all oceans worldwide and are 

separated into populations from the 

North Atlantic Ocean, North Pacific 

Ocean, and Southern Hemisphere. 

Worldwide, blue whales were 

significantly depleted by commercial 

whaling activities. 

In the entire North Pacific, pre-exploitation population size is speculated to be approximately 4,900 blue 

whales (Gambell 1976). Blue whale population structure in the North Pacific remains uncertain, but two 

stocks are recognized within U.S. waters: the western North Pacific (formerly Hawaii) and the eastern North 

Pacific (formerly California/Mexico) stocks. No data are available to provide a minimum population estimate 

or to determine a population trend for the western North Pacific stock. The eastern North Pacific stock feeds 

in waters from California to Alaska in summer and fall, and migrates south to waters from Mexico to Costa 

Rica in winter. The best abundance estimate for the eastern North Pacific stock is the average of markrecapture estimates, 2,842 (CV= 0.41) whales. It is unclear whether this population is increasing, decreasing, 

or stable (Carretta et al. 2009). 

In the North Atlantic, pre-whaling population size estimates for the entire basin are considered unreliable, but 

range from 1,100 to 1,500 blue whales (Gambell 1976). The distribution of blue whales in the western North 

Atlantic generally extends from the Arctic to at least mid-latitude waters. The current range of the blue whale 

in the North Atlantic remains unknown, but it is considered an occasional visitor in U.S. Atlantic waters, 

which may represent the current southern limit of its feeding range. The 2010 minimum population estimate 

for the western North Atlantic stock is 440 whales. There are insufficient data to determine a population 

trend for this stock (Waring et al. 2011). 

In the Southern Hemisphere, pre-exploitation population estimates range from 150,000 to 210,000 whales 

(Gambell 1976); recent abundance estimates place the population size at 400 to 1,400 whales (IWC 2007). 

Threats and Impacts: A primary threat to blue whales is mortality and serious injury caused by ship strikes. 

Ship strikes were implicated in the deaths of five blue whales from 2004 to 2008 and averaged 1.0 whales per 

year in waters off California between 2004 and 2008. Four of these deaths occurred in 2007, the highest 

number recorded for any year. Additional, unreported ship-strike mortality of blue whales likely occurs. 

Several of the whales photo-identified off California had large gashes on the dorsal body surface thought to 

be caused by collisions with vessels. There are no recent confirmed records of mortality or serious injury to 

blue whales in the U.S. Atlantic Exclusive Economic Zone, however, in March 1998 a dead blue whale was 

brought into Rhode Island waters on the bow of a tanker. The cause of death was determined to be a ship 

strike, although the location of the strike is unknown (Waring et al. 2011). 

Photo credit: NOAA Southwest Fisheries Science Center 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 165 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Other potential threats to blue whales include fishing gear entanglement and anthropogenic noise. Off 

California and Mexico, blue whales may potentially encounter and be by-caught in drift gillnet fisheries for 

swordfish and sharks. In the observed fisheries, no blue whale mortality was documented; however, 

entanglement rates may be underestimated, as blue whales may break through or carry away fishing gear, 

perhaps suffering unrecorded subsequent mortality. There were no observed fishery-related mortalities or 

serious injuries in the North Atlantic (Waring et al. 2011). While impacts are unknown, the increasing levels 

of anthropogenic underwater noise may affect blue whale communication. 

Conservation Actions: 

•	 Continued issuing vessel speed advisories of 10 knots or less for vessels transiting the Santa Barbara 

Channel when aggregations of five or more blue whales occur within or adjacent to the shipping lane. 

This is a collaborative effort (beginning in 2008) by NMFS, U.S. Coast Guard, and the National 

Ocean Service’s Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary In the coming years NMFS expects to 

continue monitoring the occurrence of this species in nearshore waters and enact protective 

measures to reduce the threat of a ship strikes. 

•	 Continued implementing the blue whale strike response plan, including weekly overflights to record 

whale locations (see http://channelislands.noaa.gov/focus/alert.html). 

•	 Continued monitoring the status of the eastern North Pacific stock of blue whales via shipboard 

surveys, conducted every 3 years with MMPA funding. 

•	 Continued placing observers onboard vessels in the California/Oregon swordfish/thresher shark 

drift gillnet fishery to monitor for the take of protected species, including marine mammals (MMPA 

funding). 

•	 Continued implementing marine mammal take reduction measures identified in the Pacific Offshore 

Cetacean Take Reduction Plan (including the use of acoustic pingers) to reduce the bycatch of 

marine mammals (MMPA funding). 

•	 Increasing training by NMFS Marine Mammal Stranding and Response program for responses to 

entangled whales, and maintains a reporting number for any whale in distress: 1-877-SOS-Whal(e). 

•	 Funded cooperative research with the states of Oregon and Washington to determine whether recent 

sightings off Washington represent a return to use of these waters and verify expanded use of 

southern Oregon waters by blue whales seen in recent years through a Species Recovery Grant (ESA 

section 6). 

•	 Along with collaborators, convened workshops and panel discussions (and fostered other 

discussions) toward identifying measures to reduce vessel collisions with large whales in waters off 

Southern California and toward steps to implement them. Among other things, this involves 

collaboration with other agencies and NOAA line offices. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: Continue ongoing recovery actions listed above. 

Recovery Priority Number: 5 

This priority number ranking reflects a moderate magnitude of threat, high recovery potential, and the 

presence of conflict (shipping and the associated threat of collisions). 

166 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bowhead Whale (Balaena mysticetus) 

Date Listed: June 2, 1970 (35 FR 8495) 

Legal Status: Endangered 

Recovery Plan Status: No recovery plan 

has been written for this species. NMFS has 

determined the combined efforts of several 

managing entities, especially those of the 

International Whaling Commission, NMFS, 

and the Alaska Eskimo Whaling 

Commission (operating under a NOAA/ 

Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission 

Cooperative Agreement)—coupled with the 

fact that four of the five stocks of bowhead 

whales exist outside of U.S. waters—obviate 

the need for and benefit of a recovery plan. 

Species Status: Five populations of 

bowhead whales are currently recognized. The Spitsbergen population is found in the North Atlantic east of 

Greenland in the Greenland, Kara, and Barents Seas. Thought to have been the most numerous of bowhead 

populations (estimated unexploited population of 24,000 animals), the Spitsbergen bowhead is now severely 

depleted, possibly numbering in the tens of animals. 

The Davis Strait population is found in Davis Strait, Baffin Bay, and along the Canadian Arctic Archipelago. 

The current population is estimated at 350 animals and recovery is described as “at best” exceedingly slow. 

No reliable estimate exists for the Hudson Bay population. Recent estimates of 256 to 284 have been 

presented for the number of whales occurring in Foxe Basin. There has been no appreciable recovery of this 

population. 

The Okhotsk Sea population may have been 3,000–6,500 animals, and may now number between 300–400, 

although reliable population estimates are not currently available. 

The Western Arctic stock of bowhead whales is growing, and may be nearing a recovered status. The current 

abundance estimate for this stock is 10,545 and is increasing at a rate of about 3 percent per year. This is 

considered to be between 46 percent and 101 percent of pre-exploitation abundance. Some analysts suggest 

this stock may be approaching carrying capacity, although the population growth rate shows no sign of 

slowing. 

Threats and Impacts: While commercial exploitation of bowhead whales is prohibited, managed 

subsistence hunting in Alaska and Russia by native groups still occurs. Other current and projected threats 

include oil and gas exploration and development, interaction with commercial fishing gear, and water quality 

issues, oil and gas exploration and development being the greatest of these. Climate change may also present 

a threat to these whales, as high northern latitudes are expected to be affected more than other areas. Iceassociated animals, such as the bowhead whale, may be sensitive to changes in Arctic weather patterns, seasurface temperatures, ice extent, and associated prey availability. However, the current and potential future 

effects of climate change on this species are poorly understood. 

Photo credit: NMFS 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 167 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Conservation Actions: 

•	 Closely managed, in cooperation with the International Whaling Commission, NMFS, and the Alaska 

Eskimo Whaling Commission, the subsistence harvest of the Western Arctic population by Alaskan 

Natives. The most recent 5- year harvest quota was issued in 2008, and this group continues to set 

harvests at sustainable levels consistent with conservation and recovery. 

•	 Continued to administer the MMPA section 101(a)(5) program to authorize small takes of bowhead 

whales incidental to lawful activities, including mitigative measures to reduce adverse effects. 

•	 Ongoing consultations under Section 7 of the ESA concerning offshore oil and gas actions in the 

Beaufort and Chukchi seas. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: The Western Arctic (U.S.) population is increasing at approximately 3 

percent annually and may be nearing a recovered state. No priority actions are identified. 

Recovery Priority Number: 7 

The magnitude of threats for this species is considered moderate, as four of the five extant populations are 

greatly reduced and at precariously low levels, and although some threats remain, biological extinction is not 

expected to occur in the immediate future. The recovery potential for bowheads is considered low to 

moderate, as the limiting factors to at least four of the five populations are not sufficiently understood. 

168 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fin Whale (Balaenoptera physalus) 

Date Listed: June 2, 1970 (35 FR 18319) 

Legal Status: Endangered 

Recovery Plan Status: A recovery plan 

for fin whales was completed in July 2010. 

Species Status: Fin whales occur in 

oceans of both the Northern and Southern 

Hemispheres between 20–75o N and S 

latitudes. Worldwide, fin whales were 

severely depleted by commercial whaling 

activities. 

The MMPA stock assessment reports for 

the fin whale recognize one stock in the 

U.S. North Atlantic Ocean (the western North Atlantic stock) and three stocks in the U.S. North Pacific 

Ocean (California/Oregon/Washington stock, Northeast Pacific stock, and Hawaii stock). In the North 

Atlantic, a reliable estimate of pre-exploitation population size does not exist and it seems unlikely that a 

robust estimate can be possible, considering the long history of exploitation and the many uncertainties about 

current abundance and population boundaries (Breiwick 1993). The best abundance estimate available for the 

western North Atlantic stock is 3,985 whales (CV= 0.24) (Waring et al. 2011). 

In the North Pacific, the total pre-exploitation population size of fin whales is estimated at 42,000 to 45,000 

(Ohsumi and Wada 1974; Omura and Ohsumi 1974). The best estimate of fin whale abundance in the 

California/Oregon/Washington stock is 3,044 (CV = 0.18) whales (Carretta et al. 2011), and for the Hawaiian 

stock is 174 (CV=0.72) (Carretta et al. 2011). The minimum population size of the Northeast Pacific stock is 

5,700 (Angliss and Allen 2011). 

The pre-exploitation abundance of fin whales in the Southern Hemisphere is estimated at 400,000 and the 

most current population estimate (1979) for fin whales in the southern oceans is 85,200 (IWC 1979). 

Threats and Impacts: Although the main direct threat to fin whales was addressed by the International 

Whaling Commission (IWC) whaling moratorium on commercial whaling, several potential threats remain. 

Among the current potential threats are collisions with vessels, reduced prey abundance due to overfishing 

and/or climate change, the possibility that illegal whaling or resumed legal whaling will cause removals at 

biologically unsustainable rates and, possibly, the effects of increasing anthropogenic ocean noise. 

Fin whales from the western North Atlantic stock are seriously injured or killed at least occasionally by fishing 

gear (e.g., gillnets) off eastern Canada and the United States, and are relatively commonly injured or killed by 

ship strikes off the U.S. East Coast. NMFS’ records on this stock from 2004 through 2008 yield a minimum 

annual rate of 3.2 human-caused deaths per year—1.2 per year resulting from fishery interactions or 

entanglements and 2.0 due to collisions with vessels (Waring et al. 2011). Because fin whales are also among 

the main attractions of whale-watching enterprises in eastern Canada and the northeastern United States, they 

are regularly subjected to close and persistent following by vessels. 

Interaction with commercial fisheries and ship strikes are also threats to the Northeast Pacific and 

California/Oregon/Washington stocks. Between 2002 and 2006, there was one observed incidental mortality 

of a fin whale in the Bering Sea/Aleutian Island pollock trawl fishery, an average of 0.23 deaths annually 

Photo credit: NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 169 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Angliss and Allen 2011). Between 2004 and 2008, ship strikes were implicated in the deaths of four fin 

whales and the injury of another in U.S. west coast waters, averaging 1.0 whale annually (Carretta et al. 2011). 

Additional mortality from ship strikes probably goes unreported because the whales do not strand or, if they 

do strand, they do not always have obvious signs of trauma. 

Fin whales are much less subject to whale watching in the eastern North Pacific than in the western North 

Atlantic. Thus, disturbance of fin whales in the Pacific is more likely to come from the abundant industrial, 

military, and fishing vessel traffic off the Mexican, U.S., and Canadian coasts than from the deliberate 

approaches of whale-watching vessels. 

Conservation Actions: For conservation actions for the western North Atlantic stock involving fishing gear 

interactions, see the North Atlantic Right Whale section of this report. North Atlantic right, humpback, and 

fin whales are all managed under the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan implemented through the 

MMPA. 

NMFS Marine Mammal Stranding and Response program has increased training for responses to entangled 

whales, and maintains a reporting number for any whale in distress: 1-877-SOS-Whal(e). 

There are no conservation actions specifically for the Hawaii and Alaska/Northeast Pacific stocks of fin 

whales. 

Conservation actions for the California/Oregon/Washington stock of fin whales are ongoing and include the 

following: 

•	 Continued monitoring the status of the California/Oregon/Washington stock of fin whales via shipboard surveys, dependent upon availability of MMPA funding. 

•	 Continued placing observers onboard vessels in the California/Oregon swordfish/thresher shark 

drift gillnet fishery to monitor for the take of protected species, including marine mammals. 

•	 Continued implementing marine mammal take reduction measures identified in the Pacific Offshore 

Cetacean Take Reduction Plan (including the use of acoustic pingers) to reduce the bycatch of 

marine mammals. 

•	 Continued conducting genetic analyses to examine the global taxonomic status of fin whales, with a 

focus on the potential for a new subspecies in the North Pacific. 

•	 Conducted a combination of genetic and acoustic analyses to clarify stock structure of North Pacific 

fin whales. 

•	 Funded cooperative research with the states of Oregon and Washington to determine habitat and use 

in offshore waters, examine distribution relative to shipping lanes to evaluate vulnerability to ship 

strikes, and determine population structure through photo-ID, genetics, and satellite tag movements 

through a Species Recovery Grant (ESA section 6). 

•	 The North Atlantic stock of fin whales likely benefits from various ship strike reduction measures 

established to protect right, humpback, and minke whales on the U.S. east coast. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: The priority recovery actions for fin whale include continuing the 

ongoing conservation actions listed above as well as the following: 

•	 Estimate population size and monitor trends in abundance. 

•	 Determine population discreteness and structure of fin whales. 

•	 Investigate sources of human-caused injury and mortality. 

Recovery Priority Number: 9 

This priority number reflects a low degree of threat, high recovery potential, and the presence of conflict with 

economic activities (shipping and the potential for collisions). 

170 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) 

Date Listed: June 2, 1970 (35 FR 18319) 

Legal Status: Endangered 

Recovery Plan Status: A recovery plan 

for the humpback whale was completed in 

November 1991. 

Species Status: Humpback whales live in 

all major ocean basins from equatorial to 

sub-polar latitudes. 

In the entire North Pacific Ocean prior to 

1905, it was estimated there were 15,000 

humpback whales basin-wide (Rice 1978). 

In 1966, after heavy commercial 

exploitation, humpback abundance was 

estimated at 1,000 to 1,200 whales (Rice 1978), although it is unclear whether estimates were for the entire 

North Pacific or just the eastern North Pacific. The most current estimate of abundance for the North Pacific 

overall comes from the SPLASH project and is 18,302 individuals (Calambokidis et al., 2008). For the entire 

North Atlantic Ocean, the best available estimate is 11,570 whales (CV=0.069) (Stevick et al., 2003). 

Five stocks of humpback whales are recognized in U.S. waters: the Gulf of Maine (formerly western North 

Atlantic) stock in the Atlantic Ocean, and the western North Pacific, central North Pacific (including the 

Southeast Alaska feeding area), California/Oregon/Washington, and the American Samoa stocks in the 

Pacific Ocean. While estimating humpback whale abundance is inherently difficult, best estimates of 

abundance are: 847 (CV=0.55) for the Gulf of Maine stock (Waring et al 2011), 938 (CV=0.30) for the 

western North Pacific stock (Angliss and Allen 2011), 7,469 (CV=0.30) for the central North Pacific stock 

(Angliss and Allen 2011), and 2,043 (CV=0.10) for the California/Oregon/Washington stock (Carretta et al. 

2011). There is currently no estimate of abundance for humpback whales in American Samoan waters. The 

minimum population estimate for this stock is 150 whales, which is the number of individual humpback 

whales identified in the waters around American Samoa between 2003–2008 by individual fluke photo 

identification (J. Robbins, personal communication). Based on study design in which it is likely not all 

individuals are sampled, this is considered an underestimation of the true minimum population size. The Gulf 

of Maine, central North Pacific, California/Oregon/Washington and western North Pacific stocks seem to be 

increasing. 

In the entire Southern Hemisphere, humpback whale abundance prior to commercial exploitation is 

estimated at 100,000 whales (Gambell 1976). Recent abundance estimates south of 60oS latitude in the 

summer range from 34,000–52,000 whales (IWC 2011). Based on mark-recapture studies, an estimated 82 

individuals (95% CI 60–111) exist in the Northern Indian Ocean. However, sample sizes were small, and 

there were various sources of possible negative bias (Minton et al., In press). 

Threats and Impacts: Fishing gear entanglements and ship strikes are the most common human-related 

causes of serious injury and mortality for humpback whales. Similar to other large whales, humpback whales 

are capable of becoming entangled and swimming away with parts of fixed fishing gear. Up to 60 percent of 

mortalities for humpback whales along the United States mid-Atlantic and southeastern coasts were 

determined to have resulted from either gear entanglements or vessel collisions (Wiley et al. 1995, Volgenau 

et al. 1995). 

Photo credit: NOAA National Undersea Research Program 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 171 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Entanglements 

Entanglement can result in abrasions, lesions, debilitating injury, or even death depending on the type, 

amount, and location of entangling gear. Even without injury, entanglement can impair swimming and 

feeding ability leading to isolation of individual members from groups and/or metabolic stress. Stressed 

animals may alter normal behavior associated with courting, breeding, giving birth, and nursing their young 

(Robbins 2010). Robbins and Mattila (2001) reported that male humpback whales are more likely to become 

entangled than females. Scarring data from these studies suggested that yearlings were more likely than other 

age classes to be involved in entanglements. Female humpback whales showing evidence of prior 

entanglements produced significantly fewer calves, suggesting that entanglement may impact reproductive 

success. 

For the period 2004 through 2008, the minimum annual rate of fishing-related mortality and serious injury to 

the Gulf of Maine stock averaged 3.0 per year (U.S. waters, 2.8; Canadian waters, 0.2). During this same 

period, five deaths and ten serious injuries to North Atlantic humpback whales were attributed to 

entanglement (Glass et al. 2010, as described in Waring et al. 2011). 

NMFS has observed the incidental take of humpback whales in the California/Oregon swordfish/thresher 

shark drift gillnet fishery and believes humpback whales are also taken in drift gillnet fisheries off Baja 

California, but quantified information regarding takes in these fisheries is not available. In the North Pacific 

Ocean, humpback whales migrate annually from Hawaii to northern British Columbia, Southeast Alaska and 

Prince William Sound west to Kodiak, and they may become entangled in gear from several fisheries. A total 

of 18 humpback whales were observed entangled in fishing gear during 2004–2008 in California, Oregon, and 

Washington—11 were reported entangled at sea in trap/pot fishery gear off California and Oregon, including 

two humpback whales that were later found dead in Oregon (Northwest Regional Stranding Program, 

unpublished data). Seven humpback whales were reported entangled in gillnet-type or other gear, including 

lines and buoys of unknown origin. Two of the 11pot/trap gear entanglements could be attributed to specific 

fisheries: One whale was entangled in sablefish trap gear and another in spot prawn trap gear (NMFS, 

Southwest Regional Stranding Program, unpublished data). The whale entangled in sablefish trap gear was 

successfully disentangled by divers who removed all the gear, and the whale swam away immediately 

following disentanglement. Another whale entangled in crab pot gear in 2008 was successfully disentangled. 

One of the sightings involving crab pot gear included a cow/calf pair in which the cow was entangled. Due to 

the nature of the entanglements, including gear being towed, 14 of the humpback whales are considered 

serious injuries. Including the 14 serious injuries and two deaths, total mean annual serious injury and 

mortality for the commercial fisheries was 3.2 per year for the period 2004–2008. 

In Alaska, most reported events have occurred in the region of Southeast Alaska, with the majority of gear 

being crab, shrimp, and unidentified pot gear, as well as gillnet and other unidentified nets. Between 2008 and 

2010, NMFS received 37 humpback whale entanglement reports in Alaska. Longline gear, crab pots, and 

other non-fishery-related lines have been implicated in the entanglement of humpback whales seen in Hawaii. 

Ship Strikes 

Another threat to humpback whales is mortality or serious injury from ship strikes. Over the last two decades, 

the number of reports involving confirmed vessel-whale collisions has increased, likely the result of increased 

awareness and reporting from boat operators or perhaps from increased boat traffic. While it is difficult to 

evaluate the number of vessel-whale collisions based on those reported to the media and authorities, it is clear 

that not all incidents are documented. From 2004 through 2008, eight mortalities from the Gulf of Maine 

stock were attributed to collisions with vessels, averaging 1.6 deaths per year (Glass et al. 2010, as described in 

Waring et al. 2011). 

In the Pacific Ocean, two humpback whale deaths were attributed to ship strikes in 2004–2008 (NMFS, 

unpublished stranding data). An additional humpback whale that was struck in Washington waters in 2008 

was reported to have broken the stabilizer on the vessel that struck it, but the condition of the whale is 

172 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

unknown. During 2004–2008, there were an additional eight injuries of unidentified large whales attributed to 

ship strikes and some of these could have involved humpback whales. Additional mortality from ship strikes 

probably goes unreported because the whales do not strand or, if they do, they may not have obvious signs of 

trauma. Several humpback whales have been photographed in California with large gashes in their dorsal 

surface that appear to be from ship strikes (J. Calambokidis, pers. comm.). The average number of 

documented humpback whale deaths by ship strikes for 2004–2008 is 0.4 per year, but it remains likely that 

not all humpback whale deaths from vessel strikes are documented. 

Between 2003 and 2007, eight vessel collisions were reported for the Central North Pacific stock of 

humpback whales. Of those, seven ship strikes occurred in Southeast Alaska and one occurred in the 

northern portion of this stock’s range. It is not known whether the difference in ship strike rates between 

Southeast Alaska and the northern portion of this stock is due to differences in reporting, amount of vessel 

traffic, whale densities, or other factors. From 2003 to 2007, the annual average of known humpback whale 

ship strike deaths was 1.6 humpback whale mortalities per year for the entire stock (0.2 ship strikes/year for 

the northern portion of the stock, and 1.4 strikes/year for the Southeast portion) (Angliss and Allen 2011). In 

Hawaii, from 2005 through the end of the 2010 whale season, at least 42 confirmed collisions occurred, with 

at least 14 whales showing signs of injury (Lammers et al. 2003, Lyman 2010). 

Interactions with whale-watching vessels (e.g., disturbance or harassment, vessel strikes) are also a threat to 

humpback whales. The Gulf of Maine stock of humpback whales is the focus of whale watching in New 

England from late spring to early fall, particularly within the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary. The 

central North Pacific stock is the focus of a developed whale-watching industry on its wintering grounds in 

the Hawaiian Islands. The feeding aggregation in southeast Alaska is also the focus of a developing whalewatching industry that may affect whales in localized areas. 

Habitat loss and degradation may also impact humpback whales. Shipping channels, fisheries, and 

aquaculture, and alternative energy production may all occupy or degrade humpback whale aggregation 

habitats. Recreational use of marine areas, including resort development and increased boat traffic (thrill 

craft), may displace whales that would normally use an area. In Hawaii, acoustic impacts from vessel 

operation, oceanographic research using active sonar, and military operations are also potential threats. 

Conservation Actions: During 2008–2010, key conservation actions included: 

Reduction of incidental take 

•	 For conservation measures concerning fishing gear interactions in the North Atlantic, see the North 

Atlantic Right Whale section of this report. North Atlantic right, humpback, and fin whales are all 

managed under the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan. 

•	 Between 2005–2010, a dedicated effort to train personnel and build capacity throughout Alaska 

occurred through a partnership between NMFS Alaska Region and the Hawaiian Islands Humpback 

Whale National Marine Sanctuary. The Alaska Response Network has grown since inception in 1998, 

now comprises over 120 participants statewide. Trainings sessions were provided in 10 communities 

in Alaska during this time, and over 60 on-water responses were mounted. To date, over 33 large 

whales have been completely or partially disentangled in Alaska. 

•	 NMFS implements marine mammal take reduction measures identified in the Pacific Offshore 

Cetacean Take Reduction Plan (including the use of acoustic pingers to deter whales from fishing 

gear) to reduce the bycatch of marine mammals. 

•	 NMFS is finalizing a risk assessment of the co-occurrence of fisheries and whale densities in the 

Pacific Ocean. 

•	 The Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary continues to play a leading 

role—locally, nationally, and internationally—in mitigating the impact to humpback whales from 

entanglement in ropes and nets. Locally, the sanctuary continues to conduct personnel training 

sessions, is acquiring specialized equipment for islands with histories of events, and responds to calls 

concerning humpback whales in distress. 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 173 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Education and outreach 

•	 NMFS Marine Mammal Stranding and Response program has increased amount of training provided 

for responses to entangled whales, and maintains a reporting number for any whale in distress: 1-877­

SOS-Whal(e). 

•	 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary maintains a working group on whale-watching issues. 

•	 NMFS continues to reach out to the commercial whale-watch vessels in New England ports about 

whale-watching guidelines. 

•	 In 2010, NMFS co-convened with the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine 

Sanctuary an IWC-sponsored workshop on large whale entanglement. The workshop covered a 

broad range of topics, including the global scope of the problem, the nature of entangling gear, the 

likelihood of adverse effects to both the individual whale and the population, the efforts to respond, 

and the challenges involved in addressing the problem. The workshop included participants from 

many countries including those that have well-established whale disentanglement programs. The 

workshop highlighted U.S. concern and leadership on this important issue, and noted that fishing 

gear entanglement remains the most significant human-generated cause of mortality in many large 

whale populations. 

Surveys and research 

•	 NMFS continued to monitor the status of the eastern North Pacific stock via shipboard surveys, 

which are conducted every 3 years, and through mark-recapture studies conducted annually. 

•	 Funded cooperative research with the states of Oregon and Washington to refine information on 

population structure thought genetics, photo-ID and satellite tag movements, examine seasonal 

occurrence, estimate abundance from both mark-recapture and line-transect, and assess overlap with 

human activities through a Species Recovery Grant (ESA section 6). 

•	 NMFS continued to place observers onboard vessels in the California/Oregon swordfish/thresher 

shark drift gillnet fishery to monitor for the take of protected species, including marine mammals. 

The agency plans to place observers with other fisheries, including large-mesh drift gillnet, deep-set 

pelagic longline, Southern California set gillnet, Southern California small-mesh gillnet, and coastal 

pelagic species purse seine. 

•	 The Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary has continued to build 

partnerships to conduct marine mammal surveys, concentrating on humpback whales, including the 

waters surrounding American Samoa. 

•	 In 2002, the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary working with NMFS, 

USCG, and the State of Hawaii spearheaded the creation of the Hawaiian Islands Entanglement 

Response Network. At the end of 2009, the network had more than 170 trained participants. Since 

2002, the network has conducted more than 60 on-water entanglement responses, and successfully 

disentangled 15 humpback whales from life threatening entanglements. The ultimate goal of the 

network is to continue gathering valuable information that will help mitigate the issue of marine 

debris and future entanglements. 

•	 NMFS Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Response Program worked in partnership with the 

Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary and private institutions such as the 

Provincetown Center for Coastal Studies and the Cascadia Research Collective to develop new 

techniques to assess the health of free-swimming humpback whales and the impact from and 

circumstances leading to humpback whale entanglement in fishing gear and marine debris. Most of 

the results from this research have been presented in various national and international venues. 

•	 The MoNAH (More North Atlantic Humpbacks) project was a cooperative venture to estimate the 

population size of North Atlantic humpback whales that visit the primary calving grounds in the 

West Indies. A genetic marker–based mark recapture estimate from this venture should be available 

by the end of 2011 and be comparable to the YoNAH (Year of the North Atlantic Humpback) 

project of the prior decade. 

174 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

•	 In 2010, NMFS convened a BRT to conduct a global status review of humpback whales. This status 

review is underway. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: NMFS will continue its efforts to address human-caused mortality and 

serious injury of humpback whales associated with fishing gear and vessel interactions. Additional work is 

needed to complete the development and implementation of a more comprehensive ship-strike strategy that 

encompasses large cetacean species in addition to right whales. Although substantial work has been done 

concerning gear modifications to address entanglement risks associated with the groundline of pot/trap and 

gillnet gear, additional work is needed to better understand the entanglement risk posed by the endlines (buoy 

lines) of fixed gear, and to better understand humpback whale behavior once whales become entangled. 

Additional studies must also be conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the right whale take reduction 

measures on humpback whale entanglements. In addition, improved quality of reporting and efforts to 

validate reports are needed, as well as study of the type of gear involved in an entanglement to assign 

interactions accurately to fishery. Dedicated stand-by vessels to monitor entangled animals until a trained 

disentanglement team can be mobilized are also crucial to the success of response. 

Recovery Priority Number: 5 

The species recovery priority reflects a moderate magnitude of threat in some regions, a high recovery 

potential in many regions, and the presence of conflict (because restrictions on commercial fishing and 

shipping would potentially create a conflict). 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 175 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Killer Whale (Orcinus orca) – Southern Resident DPS 

Date Listed: November 18, 2005 

(70 FR 69903) 

Legal Status: Endangered 

Recovery Plan Status: A final 

recovery plan for Southern Resident 

killer whales was completed in January 

2008. 

Species Status: In the 1980s and early 

1990s, the Southern Resident 

population increased following 

Photo credit: NOAA reductions due to live captures for 

public display in the 1960s and 1970s. 

From 1996–2001, the population 

declined by almost 20 percent, 

prompting a petition to list them under 

the ESA. The population increased for several years, reaching 90 whales in 2006, but has declined to 87 

whales as of the 2010 census. In March 2011, NMFS completed a 5-year review for Southern Resident killer 

whales (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/species/swkw_5year_review.pdf). 

Threats and Impacts: Threats identified for Southern Resident killer whales include limited prey 

availability, pollution/contaminants, vessel effects, and sound. Concerns regarding the demographics of the 

population include the small number of reproductive-age males, presence of reproductive-age females that are 

not having calves, and potential for inbreeding. In addition, the small population size and social structure 

make Southern Resident killer whales susceptible to catastrophic oil spills or disease outbreaks, which have 

the potential to impact the entire population. Live captures have been discontinued and are no longer a threat 

to the population. 

Conservation Actions: During 2008–2010, research programs included projects on population monitoring, 

winter distribution, prey associations and diet, vessel interactions, contaminant levels, health assessments, 

taxonomy and genetics, improving research techniques and technology, research planning, and coordination. 

In 2009 the Northwest Fisheries Science Center compiled a newsletter with an update on recent research 

results and it is posted on their web page at: 

http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/research/divisions/cbd/marine_mammal/marinemammal.cfm 

In addition to research projects, continued implementation of actions identified in the recovery plan 

including: 

•	 Proposed Rule regarding protective regulations for killer whales in the Northwest Region published 

July 29, 2009 (74 FR 37674). The proposed rule was accompanied by a draft Environmental 

Assessment under NEPA with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Coast Guard, 

and Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Canada serving as cooperating agencies. The comment 

period on the Proposed Rule and Environmental Assessment closed January 15, 2010. 

•	 Collected data on vessel activities and the use of San Juan Islands area to respond to comments on 

proposed rule and draft Environmental Assessment and inform development of final rule. 

•	 Increased on-water stewardship and vessel monitoring, including continued monitoring of vessel 

activities in the vicinity of whales and addition of kayak education and compliance in partnership 

with the Soundwatch Boater Education Program. 

Photo credit: NOAA 

176 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

•	 Supported enforcement presence on the water in coordination with Washington State law prohibiting 

approach within 100 yards of Southern Resident killer whales (RCW 15.77.740) and evaluated 

enforcement of state law with Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 

•	 Funded cooperative research with the states of Oregon and Washington to examine winter 

distribution, an apparent key element that has been difficult to study, and examine winter prey, which 

is poorly understood, using examination of prey remains in footprints of whales as has been used 

during summer months through a Species Recovery Grant (ESA section 6). 

•	 Incorporated the Oil Spill Response Plan for Killer Whales as an appendix to the Northwest Area 

Contingency Plan. Continued development of protocols for hazing techniques to keep whales from 

oiled areas. 

•	 Coordinated with salmon recovery programs to support killer whale recovery (see Pacific Salmon 

Recovery). 

•	 Completed the Puget Sound Partnership Action Agenda for cleaning up, restoring, and protecting 

Puget Sound by 2020. The Plan recommends implementation of the Recovery Plan for Southern 

Resident Killer Whales. 

•	 Reduced and mitigated effects of in-water construction and other federal actions through section 7 

consultations under the ESA. 

•	 Implemented education and outreach programs, including continued promotion of the “Be Whale 

Wise” campaign, partnering with the Seattle Aquarium and The Whale Museum, and support of 

“Killer Whale Tales” and “Saving Springer” classroom programs. 

•	 Conducted training for whale watch naturalists in partnership with the Northwest Fisheries Science 

Center and The Whale Museum. 

•	 Increased capability to respond to killer whale strandings in partnership with UC Davis and
 

Northwest Marine Mammal Stranding Program and developed initial stranding protocol for
 

Northwest Region Marine Mammal Stranding Network.
 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: There is considerable uncertainty regarding which threats may be 

responsible for the decline in the population or which is the most important factor to address for recovery. 

The recovery plan lays out an adaptive management approach and a recovery strategy that addresses each of 

the potential threats based on the best available science. The recovery program links management actions to 

an active research program to fill data gaps and incorporates monitoring to assess effectiveness. Feedback 

from research and monitoring will provide the information necessary to refine ongoing recovery actions and 

develop and prioritize new actions. Needed recovery actions include: 

•	 Prey availability: Support salmon restoration efforts in the region including habitat, harvest and 

hatchery management considerations, and continued use of existing NMFS authorities to ensure an 

adequate prey base. 

•	 Pollution/contamination: Clean up existing contaminated sites, minimize continuing inputs of
 

contaminants harmful to killer whales, and monitor emerging contaminants.
 

•	 Vessel effects: Continue with evaluation and improvement of guidelines for vessel activity near
 

Southern Resident killer whales and evaluate the need for regulations or protected areas.
 

•	 Acoustic effects: Continue agency coordination and use of existing mechanisms to minimize potential 

impacts on the whales from anthropogenic sound. 

•	 Oil spills: Prevent oil spills and improve response preparation to minimize effects on Southern 

Resident killer whales and their habitat in the event of a spill. 

•	 Education and outreach: Enhance public awareness, educate the public on how they can help conserve 

killer whales, and improve reporting of southern resident killer whale sightings and strandings. 

•	 Respond to sick, stranded, and injured killer whales: Improve responses to live and dead killer whales to 

implement rescues, conduct health assessments, and determine causes of death to learn more about 

threats and guide overall conservation efforts. 

•	 Transboundary and interagency coordination: Coordinate monitoring, research, enforcement, and 

complementary recovery planning with Canadian agencies and U.S. federal and state partners. 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 177 
•	 Research and monitoring: Conduct research to facilitate and enhance conservation efforts. Continue the 

annual census to monitor trends in the population, identify individual animals, and track 

demographic parameters. 

Recovery Priority Number: 3 

This recovery priority number is based on a high magnitude of threat due to low population numbers and 

continuing threats to recovery, a moderate recovery potential based on uncertainty regarding most important 

threats, and presence of conflict, because regulatory actions taken could involve restrictions on commercial 

fishing, contaminant discharge, and vessels. 

178 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

North Atlantic Right Whale (Eubalaena glacialis) 

Date Listed: June 2, 1970 (35 FR 

18319). Based on a December 2006 

status review of the northern right 

whale, NMFS listed the North 

Pacific and North Atlantic right 

whale populations as separate 

endangered species on March 6, 

2008 (73 FR 12024). 

Legal Status: Endangered 

Recovery Plan Status: A recovery 

plan for the North Atlantic right 

whale was completed in May 2005. 

Species Status: The preexploitation distribution of northern 

right whales in the North Atlantic 

probably included coastal and 

continental shelf waters in temperate to subarctic latitudes. Pre-exploitation abundance is unknown but has 

been estimated at over 1,000 individuals (Reeves et al. 1992). Current distribution and abundance data suggest 

significant reductions from historic levels. In the eastern North Atlantic, the northern right whale population 

probably numbers in the low tens, with little known regarding their distribution and migration pattern. The 

western north Atlantic population had at least 361 individuals in 2005 having grown at a mean rate of 2.1 

percent from 1990–2005 (Waring et al. 2011). In 2009 at least 39 calves were observed off the coasts of 

Georgia and Florida, the most ever recorded since record keeping and systematic surveys began in the early 

1980s. While movements of western North Atlantic right whales are extensive, there are six major habitats or 

congregation areas: coastal waters of the southeastern United States, the Great South Channel, Georges 

Bank/Gulf of Maine, Cape Cod and Massachusetts Bays, the Bay of Fundy, and the Scotian Shelf. 

Threats and Impacts: Ship strikes and fishing gear entanglements are the most common human-related 

causes of serious injury and mortality in the western North Atlantic right whale population. Other potential 

threats are habitat degradation, energy exploration, ship noise, contaminants, military activities, and climate 

and ecosystem change. Of 14 recorded deaths or serious injuries to North Atlantic right whales attributed to 

human causes during 2004–2008 (in both U.S. and Canadian waters), four involved entanglement or fishery 

interactions and ten were from collisions with vessels (Waring et al. 2011). Entanglement records from 1990 

through 2008 included 47 confirmed right whale entanglements, including right whales caught in weirs, 

gillnets, and trailing line and buoys (Waring et al. 2011). These numbers are likely underestimates, given 

unreported or unseen incidences. Any human-caused serious injury or mortality is problematic for this species 

because of its low population size. 

Conservation Actions: NMFS has many new and ongoing programs to reduce the threats of incidental ship 

strikes and commercial fishing gear entanglement. Many of these activities (e.g., the Atlantic Large Whale 

Take Reduction Plan) are intended to protect not only North Atlantic right whales but also endangered 

humpback and fin whales and to benefit non-endangered minke whales. NMFS’ Marine Mammal Health and 

Stranding Response Program and its partners continue to respond to stranding and entanglements. The 

Program also administers grants for response and recovery of marine mammals through the John H. Prescott 

Marine Mammal Rescue Assistance Grant Program. 

Reduction of Incidental Take- Ship Strike Reduction 

Photo credit: NOAA Northeast Fisheries Science Center 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 179 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

•	 In December 2008, NMFS promulgated new rules for all vessels 65 feet or greater to limit speed to 

10 knots or less in Seasonal Management Areas where whales are known to occur at particular times. 

NOAA also expects, but does not require, mariners to avoid or limit speed to 10 knots or less in 

Dynamic Management Areas (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/shipstrike/). 

 NMFS and its partners made a concerted effort to notify the public and maritime community 

about the requirements both prior to their enactment and during the periods in which Seasonal 

Management Areas were in effect. Such notifications appear in various navigational aids, 

including the U.S. Coast Pilots, Sailing Directions, U.S. Coast Guard Local and Broadcast 

Notices to Mariners; via periodic NOAA Weather Radio announcements; distribution of 

laminated “compliance guides” and free interactive CDs through U.S. Coast Guard personnel, 

port captains, and marine exchanges; National Weather Buoy and other web sites; NOAA 

shipping industry liaisons and NOAA’s Nav Managers; e-mail distribution lists; press releases; 

notifications provided directly to their members by maritime associations; announcements and 

articles in trade journals and periodicals; distributions by agencies such as the Department of 

Transportation’s Maritime Administration; outgoing messages of the U.S. east coast right whale 

Mandatory Ship Reporting systems (see below), and other means. 

•	 The U.S. submitted proposals to the International Maritime Organization to modify vessel 

operations to reduce the risk of ship strikes to right whales. These proposals were adopted by the 

International Maritime Organization and the measures are now in effect. One measure modified the 

Boston Traffic Separation Scheme (by shifting traffic 12 degrees and narrowing the traffic lanes by 

about one half mile each) to move the shipping lanes away from known right whale aggregation 

areas. The second measure is a voluntary seasonal Area To Be Avoided in the Great South Channel 

off of Massachusetts, in effect from April 1st to July 31st (the Area To Be Avoided first went into 

effect in summer 2009). These actions have moved ships away from the greatest densities of whales 

while minimizing overlap between whales and ships. 

•	 NOAA and the U.S. Coast Guard have developed and implemented Mandatory Ship Reporting 

Systems to protect right whales; the systems were endorsed by the International Maritime 

Organization. The systems require ships 300 tons or larger to report relevant ship information when 

they enter certain waters off New England and calving/nursery areas in waters off Georgia and 

Florida. This reporting prompts an automated return message providing information about the 

vulnerability of right whales to ship strikes and recent right whale sighting locations. Begun in 1999, 

this joint NOAA/ U.S. Coast Guard program is ongoing. 

•	 NOAA and other federal and state agencies continue to support and conduct extensive aircraft and 

vessel-based surveys to monitor the right whale population, including aerial and vessel-based surveys. 

NMFS assembles reports and “alerts” are disseminated to mariners via e-mail, fax, web pages, U.S. 

Coast Guard Broadcast Notices to Mariners, NOAA Weather Radio, NAVTEX, NOAA Weather 

Buoys, shipping agents, pilots, and port authorities. These efforts have been ongoing since the early 

1980s. 

•	 NMFS contributed to many outreach and education projects including: continued distribution of 

placards, brochures, and videos to mariners on ways to reduce ship strikes; maintenance of two 

websites devoted to ship-strike reduction; implementation of reprinted updates to whale advisory 

charts; contributions to mariner trade magazines; and production and distribution of an interactive 

CD on reducing ship strikes. 

Reduction of Incidental Take- Gear Entanglement Mitigation 

•	 NMFS prohibited gillnet fishing during the right whale calving season within the Southeast U.S. 

Restricted Area. 

•	 As part of the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan, NMFS implemented 68 Dynamic Area 

Management zones between 2002 and 2009 requiring gear modifications for trap/pot and gillnet gear 

in areas of unexpected aggregations of right whales north of 40° N latitude. 

•	 In 2008, NMFS promulgated regulations implementing broad-based gear modifications and
 

completed the associated Environmental Impact Statement. Conservation measures include
 

180 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

expanded sinking groundline and weak link requirements; additional gear marking requirements; 

changes in boundaries; and seasonal restrictions for gear modifications. These modifications to the 

Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan were in place by April 2009. The sinking groundline 

requirement removed thousands of miles of floating groundline from the water column potentially 

reducing the chance of whale/gear interactions. 

•	 NMFS recently developed a strategy for the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team to assist in 

the development of conservation measures intended to reduce the risk of serious injury and mortality 

of whale interactions with vertical lines (buoy lines or endlines) associated with commercial fixed 

gear. NMFS is using a co-occurrence model for the East Coast depicting the overlap between density 

of fixed fishing gear and large whale distribution (right, humpback, and fin whales). The results of 

this model are currently being used in deliberations of the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction 

Team to develop additional measures to further reduce the entanglement risk associated with vertical 

lines. 

•	 NMFS provided earmarked funding of over $3 million to the Gulf of Maine Lobster Foundation 

beginning in June of 2006 for the administration and implementation of the Maine groundline 

exchange program. This program provided financial assistance to Maine lobster trap/pot fishermen 

through the exchange of floating groundline for a voucher to be used toward the purchase of sinking 

groundline. The final exchange was conducted in August 2010. 

•	 NMFS provided additional funds in the amount of $1.7 million to the Maine Department of Marine 

Resources of which approximately $650,000 sent to the Gulf of Maine Lobster Foundation to 

administer and implement additional groundline exchanges in the state of Maine. Maine Department 

of Marine Resources is using the remaining funds to collaborate with whale researchers and industry 

groups to conduct both large whale biological and gear research off the coast of Maine. 

•	 NMFS provided $3 million in funding to the Commercial Fisheries Research Foundation in October 

2009 for the administration and implementation of a groundline exchange/conversion program for 

Lobster Management Area 2 lobster fishermen in the state of Rhode Island and Lobster Management 

Area 3 fishermen. 

•	 NMFS provided nearly $1.25 million in funding to the New England Aquarium to administer the 

Consortium for Wildlife Bycatch Reduction, a group dedicated to reducing bycatch and 

entanglements of protected marine species. A number of sub-projects being conducted by this group 

relate to reducing entanglement risks to right whales. 

•	 NMFS provided nearly $250,000 to fishing industry and academic groups to support gear research 

focused on reducing the entanglement risk associated with vertical lines of fixed fishing gear. 

•	 NMFS conducted investigations on gear removed from entangled whales. 

•	 NMFS provided funding assistance for the large whale disentanglement programs of East Coast 

states, including the states of Maine, Massachusetts, Georgia, and Florida. 

•	 NMFS contributed to many outreach and education projects including: conducting dockside 

outreach meetings throughout the east coast; collaborating with fishermen and fishing associations 

throughout the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic on conservation measures and gear research; and 

providing high level disentanglement training for fishermen, the U.S. Coast Guard, and State Marine 

Patrols. 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 181 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: Continue to enhance efforts to reduce threats from vessel collisions 

and fishing gear entanglement. 

Objective 3 of the Right Whale Recovery Plan is to identify, characterize, protect and monitor important 

habitats. On October 5, 2010, NMFS published a notice of a 90-day petition finding and notice of 12-month 

determination in the Federal Register. This combined notice was in response to a petition to revise critical 

habitat for the North Atlantic right whale.9 

In the notice, NMFS announced it is reviewing critical habitat designations for the North Atlantic right whale. 

Prior to the receipt of this petition, NMFS was already conducting an ongoing analysis and evaluation of new 

information not available at the time of the original 1994 critical habitat designation. Although the petition 

called for the expansion of critical habitat, it is NMFS’ responsibility to make the determination if revisions, if 

any, are needed. 

When NMFS has completed its review it will publish a proposed rule and will solicit public comments which 

will be considered in preparing a final determination. NMFS expects to propose changes right whale critical 

habitat in the latter half of 2011. 

Recovery Priority Number: 1 

This recovery priority number reflects a high degree of threat based on extremely low population numbers, 

high recovery potential, and potential conflict with economic activities. 

9 The petition seeks to expand existing critical habitat boundaries and designate new areas along the east coast as critical habitat for North 

Atlantic right whales. In 1994, NMFS designated three critical habitat areas in U.S. waters for these whales: calving grounds off Florida and 

Georgia and feeding grounds in Cape Cod Bay and the Great South Channel, both off Massachusetts. 

182 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

North Pacific right whale (Eubalaena japonica) 

Date Listed: June 2, 1970 (35 FR 

18319). Based on a December 2006 

status review of the northern right 

whale, NMFS listed the North Pacific 

and North Atlantic right whale 

populations as separate endangered 

species on March 6, 2008 

(73 FR 12024). 

Legal Status: Endangered 

Recovery Plan Status: A recovery plan 

for the recently listed species is not 

currently under development. The 1991 

recovery plan for Northern Right 

Whales has a section devoted to the 

North Pacific population. 

Species Status: Photographic and genotype data were used to calculate mark-recapture abundance estimates 

for right whales in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands of between 20 and 30 individuals (Wade et al. 2010), 

and the total North Pacific right whale population is not likely much larger. The eastern population of the 

North Pacific right whale is arguably the most endangered stock of whales in the world. Little is known about 

the distribution, movements, migrations, or habitat use of this population. It is thought that North Pacific 

right whales were once widely distributed across the Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea. The current range of this 

population is probably significantly reduced from historic levels. 

Threats and Impacts: Ship collisions and fishing gear entanglements are the most common anthropogenic 

causes of mortality in the western North Atlantic right whale population, but the extent of this problem in the 

North Pacific is unknown. Gillnets were implicated in the death of a right whale off the Kamchatka Peninsula 

(Russia) in 1989. No other incidental takes of right whales are known to have occurred in the North Pacific, 

but entanglement evidence has been documented in 1998 aerial photographs of one whale. There is no 

evidence of entanglement scars in the photographic catalog, but, due to incomplete body coverage of most of 

the animals, it is impossible to discount this possibility. 

There has been recent interest in oil and gas exploration and development in the Bering Sea North Aleutian 

Basin, an area that overlaps with the North Pacific right whale critical habitat. Such activity could potentially 

alter the distribution of North Pacific right whales. On March 31, 2010, President Obama issued a 

memorandum for the Secretary of the Interior withdrawing from disposition by leasing through June 30, 

2017, the Bristol Bay area of the North Aleutian Basin in Alaska. Accordingly, Sale 214 has been removed 

from the 2007–2012 Program. 

Conservation Actions: A final rule designating areas in the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska as critical habitat 

was released on April 8, 2008 (73FR 19000). 

In 2007, the National Marine Mammal Laboratory and Minerals Management Service (now Bureau of Ocean 

Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement) entered into an Interagency Agreement for the National 

Marine Mammal Laboratory to conduct integrated surveys of right whales and other cetaceans (and their 

habitat) in the Bering Sea. This work was prompted by the need for better data to assess the potential impact 

of oil and gas development in the North Atlantic Basin area. 

Photo credit: John Durban, NOAA National Marine Mammal Lab 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 183 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The overall goal of the Interagency Agreement study is to facilitate development of future oil and gas–related 

mitigation by assessing the distribution, occurrence, and habitat use of North Pacific right whales in the 

southeastern Bering Sea (North Atlantic Basin lease sale area and adjacent waters). The general objectives of 

the study are to estimate seasonal distribution, relative abundance, and movement patterns of right whales in 

and adjacent to the lease sale area and to characterize right whale habitat, foraging behavior, health, and prey 

distribution. The proposed study will have three component projects: right whale biology, passive acoustics, 

and right whale feeding and prey. 

The specific objectives are to: 

1.	 Assess the distribution of right whales using fixed-winged aircraft and ship-based surveys (focused in 

the lease sale and adjacent areas). 

2.	 Assess short- and long-term movements of whales through satellite tagging of individuals in the lease 

sale area and Critical Habitat. 

3.	 Locate whales for tagging, behavioral observations, and habitat studies using ship-based passive 

acoustic methodology. 

4.	 Conduct acoustic tagging and concurrent oceanographic and zooplankton sampling to investigate 

right whale foraging ecology and assess related habitat characteristics. 

5.	 Use acoustic monitoring to assess year-round presence and relative abundance of whales in the lease 

sale area and Critical Habitat, as well as to identify potential migration routes from the Bering Sea. 

6.	 Photo-identify and biopsy-sample individual right whales during tagging operations for analysis of 

population structure, genetics, pollutants, and diet. In addition, samples of copepods will be taken 

during oceanographic operations to establish a baseline of existing anthropogenic compounds. 

The 2007 portion of this work was limited in scope due to the short time available for organization of the 

field work; this resulted from the relatively late finalization of the Interagency Agreement between the two 

agencies. The 2008 study included a ship survey, foraging ecology studies, satellite tagging, photoidentification, and biopsy sampling. The 2009 study was a continuation of the full survey work. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: For right whales in the North Pacific, the most urgent recovery need is 

better information on the basic distribution and occurrence of right whales in the eastern North Pacific, 

including identification of their wintering areas, which remain unknown and to identify threats to the 

population. Surveys need to be continued, as well as the use of autonomous underwater recording devices 

and satellite-monitored radio tags. Additional specific recovery actions for this population will be specified 

upon completion of a recovery plan. 

Recovery Priority Number: 4 

This recovery priority number reflects a high degree of threat based on extremely low population numbers, 

low recovery potential, and no known conflict with economic activities. 

184 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sei Whale (Balaenoptera borealis) 

Date Listed: June 2, 1970 (35 FR 18319) 

Legal Status: Endangered 

Recovery Plan Status: A draft recovery plan is under development and is expected to be finalized in 

December 2011. 

Species Status: Sei whales live in temperate regions of all oceans in the Northern and Southern 

Hemispheres and are not usually associated with coastal features. Worldwide, sei whales were severely 

depleted by commercial whaling activities. 

The stock identity of sei whales in the North Atlantic Ocean is not well understood; however, NMFS 

provisionally recognizes one stock in U.S. waters—the Nova Scotia (formerly Western North Atlantic) stock, 

which is found in continental shelf waters of the northeastern U.S. and ranges northeast to waters south of 

Newfoundland. In the North Atlantic, information is not available on the pre-exploitation population size of 

sei whales. The best abundance estimate for the Nova Scotia stock 386 (CV=0.85) sei whales. A population 

trend analysis for this stock has not been done at this time (Waring et al. 2011). 

In the North Pacific Ocean, there are two stocks of sei whales in U.S. waters—the eastern North Pacific 

stock and the Hawaii stock. Pre-exploitation population estimates for sei whales in the North Pacific Ocean is 

42,000 and the most current population estimate for the entire North Pacific Ocean (from 1977) is 9,110 

(Tillman 1977). The best abundance estimate for the eastern North Pacific stock is 126 (CV=0.53), and for 

the Hawaii stock is 77 (CV=1.06) (Carretta et al. 2011). 

In the Southern Hemisphere, between 63,000 and 65,000 sei whales existed prior to commercial exploitation 

(IWC 1980). Current estimates for sei whale abundance in the southern oceans range from 9,718 to 12,000 

whales (IWC 1980, IWC 1996). 

Threats and Impacts: Although the main direct threat to sei whales was addressed by the IWC whaling 

moratorium on commercial whaling, several potential threats remain. Among the current potential threats are 

collisions with vessels, reduced prey abundance due to overfishing and/or climate change, the possibility that 

illegal whaling or resumed legal whaling will cause removals at biologically unsustainable rates and, possibly, 

the effects of increasing anthropogenic ocean noise. 

Sei whales in the western North Atlantic are occasionally injured or killed as a result of fishing gear 

entanglement and ship strikes. The minimum annual rate of human-caused mortality and serious injury 

between 2004 and 2008 was 1.0 (Waring et al. 2011). This value includes incidental fishery interaction records 

(0.6) and records of vessel collisions (0.4). A review of NMFS stranding and entanglement records from 2004 

through 2008 shows three serious injuries resulting from a fishery interaction and two mortalities resulting 

from ship strikes (Waring et al., 2011). One of these was in April 2006 when a fresh sei whale carcass was 

brought in to Baltimore on the bow of a ship. A second ship strike mortality was an adult female documented 

in May 2007 off Deer Island, Massachusetts with wounds consistent with a vessel collision (Waring et al., 

2011). A fishery entanglement serious injury was discovered on Jeffreys Ledge in southern Maine in 

September 2006. 

Threats and impacts to the eastern North Pacific and Hawaii stocks of sei whales are relatively unknown at 

this time. There is a potential for bycatch of sei whales in drift gillnet fisheries off California and Mexico, and 

in the gillnet and pelagic longline fisheries off Hawaii. No sei whale entanglements were reported between 

2004 and 2008 for these stocks (Carretta et al. 2011). There is also a potential for sei whales in the North 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 185 
 

 

 

 

 

Pacific to be killed or seriously injured by ship strikes, however no ship-strike mortalities were recorded for 

these stocks from 2004 to 2008 (Carretta et al. 2011). 

Conservation Actions: There are no specific conservation actions for the Nova Scotia stock of sei whales at 

this time. Conservation actions for the sei whale in the western North Pacific include the following: 

•	 Continued monitoring the status of the California/Oregon/Washington stock of sei whales that may 

coincide with shipboard marine mammal surveys, which are conducted every 3 years. (Sei whale 

presence is rare and unpredictable.) 

•	 Continued placing observers onboard vessels in the California/Oregon swordfish/thresher shark 

drift gillnet fishery to monitor for the take of protected species, including marine mammals. 

•	 Continued implementing marine mammal take reduction measures identified in the Pacific Offshore 

Cetacean Take Reduction Plan (including the use of acoustic pingers) to reduce the bycatch of 

marine mammals. 

Priority Recovery Actions: The priority recovery actions for sei whale include continuing the ongoing 

conservation actions listed above as well as the following: 

•	 Estimate population size and monitor trends in abundance. 

•	 Determine population discreteness and structure of sei whales. 

•	 Investigate sources of human-caused injury and mortality. 

Recovery Priority Number: 11 

This recovery priority number reflects a low degree of threat, low to moderate recovery potential (based on 

paucity of data), and potential conflict with commercial activities. 

186 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sperm Whale (Physeter macrocephalus) 

Date Listed: June 2, 1970 

(35 FR 18319) 

Legal Status: Endangered 

Recovery Plan Status: A recovery plan 

for sperm whales was completed in 

December 2010. 

Species Status: Sperm whales occur 

throughout all ocean basins from 

equatorial to polar waters, including the 

entire North Atlantic Ocean, North 

Pacific Ocean, northern Indian Ocean, 

and the southern oceans. Whitehead 

(2002) estimated current sperm whale 

abundance to be approximately 300,000–450,000 worldwide. Although his estimates are based on 

extrapolating surveyed areas to unsurveyed areas, without a systematic survey design, these are probably the 

best available and most current estimates of global sperm whale abundance. Five stocks of sperm whales are 

recognized in U.S. waters: the North Atlantic stock, northern Gulf of Mexico stock, Hawaiian stock, 

California/Oregon/Washington stock, and North Pacific stock. 

The geographic distribution of the North Atlantic stock appears to have a distinct seasonal cycle, ranging 

from being concentrated off Cape Hatteras (in winter), to being widespread throughout the central portion of 

the mid-Atlantic bight up to Georges Bank (in spring and summer), to being concentrated on the continental 

shelf south of New England and along the continental shelf edge into the mid-Atlantic bight (in fall). The 

best estimate of abundance for the western North Atlantic sperm whale stock is 4,804 (CV=0.38) (Waring et 

al. 2011). There are insufficient data to determine the population trend for this stock. 

Sperm whales are present year-round in the Gulf of Mexico. Preliminary results of genetic, satellite tagging, 

photo-identification, and vocalization studies support the distinct stock status of Gulf of Mexico sperm 

whales. The best abundance estimate for the northern Gulf of Mexico stock of sperm whales is 1,665 

(CV=0.20) (Waring et al. 2011). There are insufficient data to determine the population trend for this stock. 

In the waters around Hawaii, sounds of sperm whales have been recorded throughout the year off Oahu. In 

addition to the main Hawaiian Islands, sperm whales have also been sighted around several of the Northwest 

Hawaiian Islands. The most up–to-date population estimate for the Hawaiian stock is 6,919 (CV=0.81) 

(Carretta et al. 2011). No data are available on the current population trend for this stock. 

The geographic distribution of the California/Oregon/Washington stock of sperm whales varies seasonally. 

Sperm whales are found year-round in California waters, but peak in abundance from April through mid-June 

and from the end of August to mid-November. Off Washington and Oregon, whales from this stock are 

present in every season except winter. The best abundance estimate for this stock is 971 (CV=0.31) whales 

(Carretta et al. 2011). Sperm whale abundance appears to have been rather variable off California and does 

not show any apparent trend at this time. 

Sperm whales are widely distributed across the entire North Pacific Ocean and into the southern Bering Sea 

in summer, but the majority are thought to be south of 40oN in winter. Estimates of pre-whaling abundance 

in the North Pacific are considered somewhat unreliable, but may have totaled 1,260,000 sperm whales (Rice 

1989). Whaling harvests from 1800 to the 1980s took at least 436,000 sperm whales from the entire North 

Photo credit: NOAA Southwest Fisheries Science Center 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 187 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pacific Ocean (Carretta et al. 2009). Sperm whales in the North Pacific stock are found in Alaskan waters 

(Gulf of Alaska, Bering Sea, and Aleutian Islands). The number and population trend of sperm whales of the 

North Pacific occurring within Alaskan waters is unknown. 

No estimates of density, abundance, or trends are available based on surveys in the Indian Ocean. If we use 

Whitehead’s methods to estimate global sperm whale abundance, then abundance in the Indian Ocean is 

approximately 62,000–92,000 sperm whales. Assuming that the population is growing at about 1.1 

percent/year (in Whitehead 2002), Whitehead also estimated that the global population is at about 32 percent 

of historical numbers. 

Threats and Impacts: Although the main direct threat to sperm whales was addressed by the IWC whaling 

moratorium on commercial whaling, several potential threats remain. Among the current potential threats are 

collisions with vessels, reduced prey abundance due to climate change, the possibility that illegal whaling or 

resumed legal whaling will cause removals at biologically unsustainable rates, contaminants and pollutants, 

fishing gear entanglement, and, possibly, the effects of increasing anthropogenic ocean noise. 

During 2001–2005, human-caused mortality for the North Atlantic stock was estimated at 0.2 sperm whales 

per year, resulting from a vessel strike to a sperm whale by a naval vessel in 2001. Prior to this most recent 

analysis, several sperm whale entanglements and ship strikes had been documented, including five cases of 

observed entanglement from 1990–1997 (Waring et al. 2007). 

The level of past or current, direct, human-caused mortality of sperm whales in the northern Gulf of Mexico 

is unknown. There has been no reported fishing-related mortality of a sperm whale during 1998–2008, 

however, in 2008 there was one sperm whale released alive with no serious injury after an entanglement 

interaction with the pelagic longline fishery (Garrison et al. 2009). One possible sperm whale mortality due to 

a vessel strike was documented for the Gulf of Mexico in 1990 (Jensen and Silber 2004). 

For the California/Oregon/Washington stock, one sperm whale stranded dead in 2004 with 5- to 6-inch 

mesh nylon netting found in its stomach. The fishery source of this netting is unknown. Mean annual takes 

for this fishery are based on 2004–2008 data—this results in an average estimate of 0.2 sperm whale deaths 

per year (Carretta et al. 2011). More recently, two sperm whales were taken in the 

California/Oregon/Washington drift gillnet fishery in December 2010; one whale was dead and the other was 

released seriously injured with fishing gear still attached. NMFS expects sperm whales are also taken in drift 

gillnet fisheries for swordfish and sharks off Baja California, but detailed information regarding takes in these 

fisheries is not available. 

There are currently two distinct longline fisheries based in Hawaii: a deep-set longline fishery that targets 

primarily tunas, and a shallow-set longline fishery that targets swordfish. Both fisheries operate within U.S. 

waters and on the high seas. Between 2004 and 2008, no sperm whales were observed hooked or entangled 

either fishery (Carretta et al. 2011). 

Sperm whales in the North Pacific stock are also known to interact with fisheries. Interactions with longline 

fisheries in the Gulf of Alaska typically involve sperm whales feeding off the gear set to target both sablefish 

and halibut and may be increasing in frequency. Between 2004 and 2008, there were four observed serious 

injuries of sperm whales in the Gulf of Alaska sablefish longline fishery. Specifically, in 2006 there were three 

observed serious injuries in the Gulf of Alaska sablefish longline fishery and an additional observed 

interaction in 2007. Total estimated annual takes is 3.25 animals (Angliss and Allen 2011). 

Conservation Actions: During 2008–2010, key conservation actions included: 

•	 Continued monitoring the status of the California/Oregon/Washington stock of sperm whales via 

shipboard surveys, which are conducted every 3 years. 

188 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

•	 Funded cooperative research with the states of Oregon and Washington to determine occurrence in 

offshore waters, determine population structure through photo-ID comparisons, genetics, and 

satellite tag movements, and assess overlap and conflicts with commercial fishing especially known 

depredation of long-lines for blackcod and halibut through a Species Recovery Grant (ESA section 

6). 

•	 Continued placing observers onboard vessels in the California/Oregon swordfish/thresher shark 

drift gillnet fishery to monitor for the take of protected species, including marine mammals. 

•	 Continued implementing marine mammal take reduction measures identified in the Pacific Offshore 

Cetacean Take Reduction Plan (including the use of acoustic pingers) to reduce the bycatch of 

marine mammals. 

•	 Continued placing of observers on all oil and gas exploration vessels operating in the Gulf of Mexico 

to monitor for sperm whales, implement mitigation measures, and collect data. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: The priority recovery actions for sperm whale include continuing the 

ongoing conservation actions listed above as well as the following: 

•	 Estimate population size and monitor trends in abundance. 

•	 Determine population discreteness and structure of sperm whales. 

•	 Investigate sources of human-caused injury and mortality. 

Recovery Priority Number: 5 

This recovery priority number reflects a moderate magnitude of threat, high recovery potential in most 

regions, and the presence of conflict with commercial activities. 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 189 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LITERATURE CITED 

Angliss, R.P. and B. M. Allen. 2011. Alaska Marine Mammal Stock Assessments, 2010. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-223. 

Aurioles-Gamboa, D., F. Elorriaga-Verplancken, and C.J. Hernandez-Camacho. 2010. The current population 

statues of Guadalupe fur seal (Arctocephalus townsendi) on the San Benito Islands, Mexico. Marine Mammal 

Science, 26(2): 401–408. 

Breiwick, J.M. 1993. Population dynamics and analyses of the fisheries for fin whales (Balaenoptera physalus) in 

the northwest Atlantic Ocean. Ph.D. thesis, University of Washington, Seattle. 310 pp. 

Calambokidis, J. 2010. Personal Communication. Cascadia Research Collective, 218 1⁄2 W. 4th Avenue, 

Olympia, WA 98501. 

Calambokidis J., E.A. Falcone, T.J. Quinn, A.M. Burdin, P.J. Clapham, J.K.B. Ford, C.M. Gabriele, R. LeDuc, 

D. Mattila, L. Rojas-Bracho, J.M. Straley, B.L. Taylor, J. Urbán R., D. Weller, B.H. Witteveen, M. Yamaguchi, 

A. Bendlin, D. Camacho, K. Flynn, A. Havron, J. Huggins, and N. Maloney. 2008. SPLASH: Structure of 

Populations, Levels of Abundance and Status of Humpback Whales in the North Pacific. Cascadia Research. 

Carretta J.V., K.A. Forney, E. Oleson, K. Martien, M.M. Muto, M.S. Lowry, J. Barlow, J. Baker, B. Hanson, 

D. Lynch, L. Carswell, R.L. Brownell Jr., J. Robbins, D.K. Mattila, K. Ralls, and M.C. Hill. 2011. Draft U.S. 

Pacific Marine Mammal Stock Assessments: 2010. NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-476. 

Carretta J.V., K.A. Forney, M.S. Lowry, J. Barlow, J. Baker, D. Johnston, B. Hanson, R.L. Brownell Jr., J. 

Robbins, D.K. Mattila, K. Ralls, M.M. Muto, D. Lynch, and L. Carswell. 2009. U.S. Pacific Marine Mammal 

Stock Assessments: 2009. NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-453 

Gallo-Reynoso, J.P. 1994. Factors affecting the population status of Guadalupe fur seals, Arctocephalus 

townsendi, at Isla de Guadalupe, Baja California, Mexico. Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Santa Cruz, 

CA. 199 pp. 

Gambell, R. 1976. World whale stocks. Mammal Rev. 6(1):41–53. 

Garrison, L.P., L. Stokes, and C. Fairfield. 2009. Estimated bycatch of marine mammals and turtles in the 

U.S. Atlantic pelagic longline fleet during 2008. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFSC-591, 63 pp. 

Good, T.P., R.S. Waples, and P. Adams (editors). 2005. Updated status of federally listed ESUs of West Coast 

salmon and steelhead. U.S. Dept. Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo., NMFS-NWFSC-66, 598p. 

Hebdon, J.L., P. Kline, D. Taki, and T.A. Flagg. 2004. Evaluating reintroduction strategies for Redfish Lake 

Sockeye Salmon captive brood progeny. Amer. Fish. Soc. Symp.44:401–413. 

Hobbs, Rod. 2011. Personal Communication. National Marine Fisheries Service. National Marine Mammal 

Laboratory. Sand Point Way NE Seattle, WA 98115. 

ICES. 2008. Report of the Working Group on North Atlantic Salmon (WGNAS), 1–10 

April 2008, Galway, Ireland. ICES CM 2008/ACOM:18. 233 pp. 

190 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Independent Scientific Advisory Board (ISAB). 2007. Human population impacts on Columbia River basin 

fish and wildlife. ISAB, Report 2007-3, Portland, Oregon. 

IDEQ (Idaho Department of Environmental Quality). 2005. 2002 Integrated §303(d)/§305(b) Report. 

IDEQ, Boise. 

ISAB (Independent Scientific Advisory Board). 2007. Human population impacts on Columbia River basin 

fish and wildlife. ISAB, Report 2007-3, Portland, Oregon. 

IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.4. http://www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 

31 May 2011. 

IWC. 1979. Report of the sub-committee on protected species. Annex G, Appendix I. 

Rep. Int. Whal. Commn. 29:84–86. 

IWC. 1980. Report of special meeting on Southern Hemisphere sei whales. Rep. Int. Whal. Comm. 30: 493– 

511. 

IWC. 1996. Report of the sub-committee on Southern Hemisphere baleen whales, Annex E. Rep. Int. Whal.
 

Comm. 46:117–131.
 

IWC. 2007. International Whaling Commission statistics. URL: www.iwcoffice.org.
 

IWC. 2011. Whale Population Estimates – Accessed on April 6, 2011. 

http://iwcoffice.org/conservation/estimate.htm 

Jensen, A. S. and G. K. Silber. 2004. Large whale ship strike database. U.S. Department of Commerce. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Technical Memorandum NMFS-OPR-25. 37 pp. 

Kamezaki, N., Y. Matsuzawa, O. Abe, H. Asakawa, T. Fujii, et al. 2003. Loggerhead turtles nesting in Japan. 

In: Bolten AB, Witherington BE, editors. Loggerhead sea turtles. Washington DC: Smithsonian Books. pp 

210–217. 

Keefer, M.L., C.A. Peery, and M.J. Henrich. 2008. Temperature mediated en route migration mortality and 

travel rates of endangered Snake River sockeye salmon. Ecol. of Freshwater Fish 17:136–145. 

Lammers M., A.A.Pack, I. Davis. 2003. Historical Evidence of Whale/Vessel Collisions in Hawaiian Waters 

(1975–Present). In: OSI Technical Report 2003-1. Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine 

Sanctuary, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

Legault, C. 2005. Population Viability Analysis of Atlantic Salmon in Maine, USA. Transactions of the American 

Fisheries Society. 134:549–562. 

LCFRB (Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board). 2010. Washington lower Columbia salmon recovery and 

Fish and Wildlife subbasin plan. Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board, Olympia, WA. 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 191 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

McElhany, P., M. Chilcote, J. M. Myers, and R. Beamesderfer. 2007. Viability status of Oregon salmon and 

steelhead populations in the Willamette and Lower Columbia Basins. NOAA‐Northwest Fisheries Science 

Center, Seattle, WA. 

MacFarlane, R. B., S. Hayes, and B. Wells. 2008. Coho and Chinook Salmon Decline in California during the 

Spawning Seasons of 2007/08. National Marine Fisheries Service. Southwest Region. Santa Cruz, CA. 

Matsuzawa, Y. 2010. Nesting beach management in Japan to conserve eggs and pre-emergent hatchlings of 

the north Pacific loggerhead sea turtle, 2009 season. Honolulu: Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management 

Council final contract report. 

Minton G., T. Collins, K. Findlay, et al. (In press) Seasonal Distribution, abundance, habitat use and 

population identity of humpback whales in Oman. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management (Special Issue). 

NMFS. 2008. Biological Opinion on the management modifications for the Hawaii-based shallow-set longline 

swordfish fishery: Implementation of Amendment 18 to the Fishery Management Plan for Pelagic Fisheries 

of the Western Pacific Region. NMFS PIRO PRD. 91pp. 

Ohsumi, S. and S. Wada. 1974. Status of whale stocks in the North Pacific, 1972. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn. 

24:114–126. 

Omura, H. and S. Ohsumi. 1974. Research on whale biology of Japan with special reference to the North 

Pacific stocks, pp. 196–208 in The whale problem: a status report, ed. W.E Schevill. Harvard Univ. Press, 

Cambridge, Mass. 419 pp. 

ODFW. 2010. Lower Columbia river conservation and recovery plan for Oregon populations of salmon and 

steelhead. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Salem, OR. 

Reed, D. H., J. J. O’Grady, J. D. Ballou, and R. Frankham. 2003. The frequency and severity of catastrophic 

die-offs in vertebrates. Animal Conservation, 6: 109–114. 

Rice, D.W. 1978. The humpback whale in the North Pacific: distribution, exploitation, and numbers. In K. S. 

Norris and R. R. Reeves (Editors), Report on a Workshop on Problems Related to Humpback Whales 

(Megaptera novaeangliae) in Hawaii, p. 29–44. Contr. Rep. to U.S. Mar. Mammal Comm., NTIS PB-280-794. 

Rice, D.W. 1989. Sperm whale Physeter macrocephalus Linnaeus, 1758. Pp. 177–233 in S.H. Ridgway and R. 

Harrison (eds.), Handbook of marine mammals, vol. 4. Academic Press, London. 

Robbins J. and D. Mattila. 2001. Monitoring entanglements of humpback whales in the Gulf of Maine on the 

basis of caudal peduncle scarring. In: Paper SC/53/NAH25 presented to the IWC Scientific Committee, May 

2001 (unpublished). 

Rugh, D. J., K. E. W. Shelden, R.C. Hobbs. 2010. Range contraction in a beluga whale population. Endangered 

Species Research 12(1): 69–75. 

Stevick, P.T., J. Allen, P.J. Clapham, N. Friday, S.K. Katona, F. Larsen, J. Lien, D.K. Mattila, P.J. Palsbøll, J. 

Sigurjónsson, T.D. Smith, N. Øien, P.S. Hammond. 2003. North Atlantic humpback whale abundance and 

rate of increase four decades after protection from whaling. Marine Ecology Progress Series 258. 

Tillman, M.F. 1977. Estimates of population size for the North Pacific sei whale. Rep. Int. Whal. Comm., 

Spec. Iss. 1:98–106. 

192 www.nmfs.noaa.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

USASAC (United States Atlantic Salmon Assessment Committee Report). 2010. Annual Report of the U.S. 

Atlantic Salmon Assessment Committee. Report No. 22-2009 Activities. Annual Report 2009/22. Portland, 

Me. March 2–5, 2010. 

Van Houtan, K.S. and J.M. Halley. 2011. Long-term climate forcing in loggerhead sea turtle nesting. PLoS 

ONE 6(4): e19043. 

Volgenau, L., S. D. Kraus, J. Lien. 1995. The impact of entanglements on two substocks of the western 

North Atlantic humpback whale, Megaptera novaeangliae. Canadian Journal of Zoology 73(9): 1689-1698. 

Wade, P. R., Kennedy, A., LeDuc, R., Barlow, J., Carretta, J., Shelden, K., Perryman, W., Pitman, R., 

Robertson, K., Rone, B., Salinas, J. C., Zerbini, A., Brownell, R. L., Clapham, P. J. 2011. The world’s smallest 

whale population? Biology Letters (7) 83-85. 

Waring G.T., E. Josephson, C.P. Fairfield-Walsh, K. Maze-Foley, editors. 2007. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of 

Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments – 2007. NOAA Tech Memo NMFS-NE-205; 415 p. 

Waring G.T., E. Josephson, K. Maze-Foley, and P.E. Rosel, editors. 2011. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico 

Marine Mammal Stock Assessments – 2010. NOAA Tech Memo NMFS-NE-219. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and Point No Point Treaty Tribes (PNPTT). 2007. 

Report on summer chum salmon stock assessment and management activities for 2006. Supplemental Report 

No. 7 Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative: An implementation plan to recovery summer chum in 

the Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca Region. 

Whitehead, H. 2002. Estimates of the current global population size and historical trajectory for sperm 

whales. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 242:295–304. 

Wiley, D. N., R.A. Asmutis, T.D. Pitchford, and D.P. Gannon. 1995. Stranding and mortality of humpback 

whales, Megaptera novaeangliae, in the mid-Atlantic and southeast United States, 1985–1992. Fishery Bulletin 

93(1): 196–205. 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov 193 
APPENDIX A. NMFS Recovery Priority Number Guidelines 
 

194 www.nmfs.noaa.gov