Biennial Report to Congress 

on the Recovery Program for Threatened 

and Endangered Species
 

October 1, 2004 – September 30, 2006 

Prepared by: 

Office of Protected Resources 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

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

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

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

ESA-LISTED SPECIES UNDER NMFS JURISDICTION........................................................... 4 

SEA TURTLE RECOVERY .......................................................................................................... 8 

Green Sea Turtle (Chelonia mydas)............................................................................................ 8 

Hawksbill Sea Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata)....................................................................... 14 

Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle (Lepidochelys kempii) .................................................................... 17 

Leatherback Sea Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) ..................................................................... 20 

Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Caretta caretta).................................................................................. 25 

Olive Ridley Sea Turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea) ..................................................................... 31 

PACIFIC SALMON RECOVERY............................................................................................... 34 

Overview for 2004–2006 .......................................................................................................... 34 

Salmon Recovery in the Northwest .......................................................................................... 44 

Lower Columbia River Chinook ESU (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)................................... 44 

Lower Columbia River Coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch) ........................................................ 47 

Puget Sound Chinook ESU (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) ................................................... 50 

Snake River Fall-Run Chinook ESU (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)..................................... 53 

Snake River Spring/Summer-Run Chinook ESU (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha).................. 55 

Upper Columbia River Spring-Run Chinook ESU (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) ............... 57 

Upper Willamette River Chinook ESU (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)................................. 59 

Columbia River Chum ESU (Oncorhynchus keta)............................................................... 62 

Hood Canal Summer-Run Chum ESU (Oncorhynchus keta)............................................... 64 

Ozette Lake Sockeye ESU (Oncorhynchus nerka)............................................................... 67 

Snake River Sockeye ESU (Oncorhynchus nerka)............................................................... 69 

Lower Columbia River Steelhead DPS (Oncorhynchus mykiss).......................................... 71 

Middle Columbia River Steelhead DPS (Oncorhynchus mykiss)......................................... 74 

Snake River Basin Steelhead DPS (Oncorhynchus mykiss) ................................................. 77 

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

Upper Willamette River Steelhead DPS (Oncorhynchus mykiss) ........................................ 81 

Salmon Recovery Overlapping the Northwest and Southwest................................................. 83 

Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast Coho ESU (Oncorhynchus kisutch)............... 83 

Salmon Recovery in the Southwest .......................................................................................... 90 

Northern California Steelhead DPS (Oncorhynchus mykiss) ............................................... 90 

California Central Valley Steelhead DPS (Oncorhynchus mykiss) ...................................... 94 

Central California Coast Steelhead DPS (Oncorhynchus mykiss)........................................ 97 

South-Central California Coast Steelhead DPS (Oncorhynchus mykiss) ........................... 101 

Southern California Steelhead DPS (Oncorhynchus mykiss) ............................................. 104 

Central California Coast Coho Salmon ESU (Oncorhynchus kisutch)............................... 108 

California Coast Chinook Salmon ESU (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) .............................. 112 

Sacramento River Winter-run Chinook Salmon ESU (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)......... 116 

Central Valley Spring-run Chinook Salmon ESU (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)............... 120
 

Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar) – Gulf of Maine DPS ............................................................ 124 

NON-SALMONID FISH RECOVERY ..................................................................................... 127 

Smalltooth Sawfish (Pristis pectinata) – U.S. DPS................................................................ 127 

Gulf Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi)....................................................................... 129 

i 
 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

Shortnose Sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum)........................................................................ 132 

Green Sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris) – Southern DPS...................................................... 136 

PLANT RECOVERY ................................................................................................................. 139 

Johnson’s Seagrass (Halophila johnsonii).............................................................................. 139 

INVERTEBRATE RECOVERY................................................................................................ 140 

White Abalone (Haliotis sorenseni) ....................................................................................... 140 

Elkhorn and Staghorn Corals (Acropora palmata and A. cervicornis)................................... 143 

MARINE MAMMAL RECOVERY .......................................................................................... 145 

Seals and Sea Lions ................................................................................................................ 145 

Caribbean Monk Seal (Monachus tropicalis)..................................................................... 145 

Guadalupe Fur Seal (Arctocephalus townsendi)................................................................. 146 

Hawaiian Monk Seal (Monachus schauinslandi) ............................................................... 148 

Steller Sea Lion (Eumetopias jubatus) – Eastern and Western DPSs ................................ 153 

Whales..................................................................................................................................... 155 

Blue Whale (Balaenoptera musculus) ................................................................................ 155 

Bowhead Whale (Balaena mysticetus) ............................................................................... 157 

Fin Whale (Balaenoptera physalus) ................................................................................... 159 

Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae).................................................................... 161 

Northern Right Whale (Eubalaena glacialis)..................................................................... 165 

Sei Whale (Balaenoptera borealis) .................................................................................... 169 

Sperm Whale (Physeter macrocephalus)............................................................................ 171 

Killer Whale (Orcinus orca) – Southern Resident DPS ..................................................... 174 

APPENDIX. NMFS Recovery Priority Number Guidelines..................................................... A-1 

Cover photo credits: 

Hawaiian monk seal, salmon, killer whale, staghorn coral, and hawksbill sea turtle images 

courtesy of NOAA 

ii 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

LIST OF TABLES 

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

priority numbers, and recovery plan status..............................................................4 

Table 2. Status and trends of Pacific loggerhead nesting subpopulations ............................... 26 

Table 3. Status and trends of Pacific olive ridley nesting subpopulations............................... 31 

Table 4. ESA Listing Status of 16 Pacific Salmon ESUs and 11 West Coast Steelhead 

DPSs.......................................................................................................................34 

Table 5. Estimated spawning population sizes for known Gulf sturgeon spawning rivers ... 129 

Table 6. Threats assessment by river system within the green sturgeon Southern DPS ....... 137
 

Table 7. Estimates of white abalone population size for Tanner Bank, Cortes Bank and 

San Clemente Island .......................................................................................... 141 

LIST OF FIGURES 

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

Shoals, Hawaiian Archipelago, 1973-2002 ............................................................ 8 

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

1989-2006 ............................................................................................................... 9 

Figure 3. Kemp’s ridley nesting trends in Mexico, 1978-2006 ............................................... 17 

Figure 4. Annual loggerhead nests documented on Japanese beaches, 1988-2006................. 25 

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

1989-2006 ............................................................................................................. 26 

Figure 6. Distribution of Pacific Chinook Salmon ESUs and Steelhead DPSs....................... 36 

Figure 7. Distribution of Pacific Sockeye, Chum, and Coho Salmon ESUs ........................... 37 

Figure 8. Recovery Domains in the Northwest Region and Southwest Region ...................... 38 

Figure 9. California commercial catch of white abalone reported in the California 

Department of Fish and Game bulletins for the period 1955-1976 .................... 140 

Figure 10. Estimated abundance of Hawaiian monk seals at the six main Northwest 

Hawaiian Islands subpopulations........................................................................ 148 

Figure 11. Population size and trend of Southern Resident killer whales, 1960-2006.......... 174 

iii 

 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

OVERVIEW 

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 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 ninth Report to Congress on the status of the recovery 

program for these species. 

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

October 1, 2004, through September 30, 2006. It includes accounts of each species, its status, 

current threats, conservation actions undertaken during this timeframe, and priority actions 

needed in the next biennium. A species is defined in the ESA to include any distinct population 

segment (DPS) of any species of vertebrate, and NMFS defines a DPS of Pacific salmon as an 

evolutionarily significant unit (ESU). During the 2 years covered in this report, NMFS had 

jurisdiction over 56 domestic species (including DPSs and ESUs) of salmon, sturgeon, sawfish, 

sea grass, mollusks, sea turtles, and marine mammals, and eight foreign species, for a total of 64 

species. The 56 domestic species addressed in this report include southern resident killer whales 

(Orcinus orca), which were listed as endangered in November 2005 (70 FR 69903); green 

sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris), listed as threatened in April 2006 (71 FR 17757); and elkhorn 

and staghorn coral (Acropora palmata and A. cervicornis), listed as threatened in May 2006 (71 

FR 26852). In June 2005, NMFS listed Lower Columbia River coho salmon (Oncorhynchus 

kisutch) as threatened (70 FR 37159) and re-listed 15 ESUs of salmon with revised definitions of 

the populations to be included in the ESU. In January 2006, NMFS de-listed Oregon coast coho 

salmon (71 FR 3033), which was previously listed as threatened, and re-listed 10 DPSs of 

steelhead (71 FR 834). 

Of the 56 domestic ESA-listed species under NMFS jurisdiction, 19 currently have completed 

final recovery plans (Table 1). Five species’ recovery plans are in the process of being revised: 

Hawaiian monk seal, eastern and western DPSs of Steller sea lions, and loggerhead and Kemp’s 

ridley turtles. Twenty-two recovery plans are currently under development, including those for 

21 ESUs and DPSs of Pacific salmon and steelhead, respectively. In January 2007, the Puget 

Sound Salmon Recovery Plan was completed, which includes management strategies for the 

threatened Puget Sound Chinook salmon ESU. The northern right whale recovery plan was 

published in May 2005, and the Atlantic salmon recovery plan was published in December 2005. 

Twelve draft recovery plans (including three draft revisions) were completed in 2006, and are 

expected to be finalized in 2007. 

1
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

In addition to the numerous Pacific salmon technical recovery teams and sub-basin recovery 

teams (see Pacific Salmon Overview), there are active recovery teams for the white abalone, 

smalltooth sawfish, Kemp’s ridley and loggerhead turtles, Hawaiian monk seal, and Steller sea 

lion. Additionally, two active take reduction teams, formed in accordance with Marine Mammal 

Protection Act, assist in the recovery of listed species: the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction 

Team and Pacific Offshore Cetacean Take Reduction Team. 

Recovery of threatened and endangered species is a tremendous, long-term challenge. One way 

NMFS uses to meet this challenge is meaningful stakeholder involvement in recovery planning 

and implementation. All NMFS active recovery teams either have stakeholder representation on 

their teams (federal, state, and local government agencies; affected industries; conservation or 

other non-governmental organizations; or affected individuals), or hold stakeholder fora to keep 

the public informed of their progress and to obtain feedback. In some cases (e.g., Pacific salmon 

recovery efforts in Washington State), recovery boards were appointed by the Governor and the 

plans written by local sub-basin recovery teams. NMFS helps support these teams, actively 

participating in them, and is adopting their plans as draft recovery plans to be published for 

public comment. Experience has shown that true stakeholder involvement in the planning 

process results in “buy-in” to the recovery plan and greater recovery activity both during and 

after the planning process. Stakeholder involvement is emphasized in the Interim Recovery 

Planning Guidance, completed in October 2004 and updated in July 2006. The guidance 

currently is being field-tested in regional and field offices (see 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/laws/esa/policies.htm). 

In addition to recovery planning, implementation of recovery activities was active for all NMFSlisted species during the biennium covered in this report. Among ongoing conservation and 

research activities, two efforts are especially worth noting: (1) the Atlantic/Gulf of Mexico Sea 

Turtle Strategy (Sea Turtle Strategy) and (2) efforts to recover northern right whales, one of our 

most severely endangered species. 

The Sea Turtle Strategy is a gear-based approach to evaluating and reducing sea turtle bycatch in 

state and federal waters of the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico. To date, sea turtle bycatch 

has been addressed fishery by fishery, often on an emergency basis. Management efforts have 

primarily focused on federal fisheries that have been the subject of ESA section 7 consultations, 

and thus have largely neglected sea turtle bycatch in state and recreational fisheries. Recent 

management actions to help protect sea turtles include new gear requirements for the Virginia 

component of the Chesapeake Bay pound net fishery (71 FR 36024), and gear modifications to 

sea scallop dredges (71 FR 50361). In December 2006, NMFS proposed a regulation to place 

observers on vessels to learn more about sea turtle interactions with fishing operations, to 

evaluate existing measures to reduce sea turtle takes, and to determine whether additional 

measures may be necessary. 

Efforts to recover North Atlantic right whales are proceeding on two paths. Steps are being 

taken to reduce serious injury and death due to entanglement in commercial fishing gear 

(primarily through fishing gear modifications and restrictions to reduce the likelihood of 

entanglement) under the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan. NMFS is in the process of 

2
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

rulemaking to implement additional measures to reduce bycatch. Because right whale deaths 

also result from collisions with large ships, NMFS has developed a North Atlantic Right Whale 

Ship Strike Reduction Strategy. This includes mariner education and outreach programs, 

modifications to ships’ operations to reduce ship strikes via ESA section 7 consultations, 

negotiation of a right whale conservation agreement with Canada, and continuation of ongoing 

research and conservation activities. In June 2006, NOAA proposed a mandatory speed 

restriction for certain sized vessels during specific times in specific locations along the U.S. East 

Coast, to reduce the risk of collisions between ships and endangered North Atlantic right whales. 

In July 2006, NMFS published the Draft Environmental Impact Statement to Implement the 

Operational Measures of the North Atlantic Right Whale Ship Strike Reduction Strategy. 

Comments on the proposed rule and draft Environmental Impact Statement are currently being 

evaluated. To further reduce the likelihood of ship collisions in key right whale habitats, in 

November 2006 NOAA established a set of recommended vessel routes in four locations along 

the Atlantic coast. 

Between October 1, 2004, and September 30, 2006, of the 56 domestic endangered or threatened 

species under NMFS jurisdiction, 23 (41 percent) were stabilized or improving; 12 (21 percent) 

were known to be declining; 20 (36 percent) were unknown or mixed in their status; and 1 (2 

percent) are presumed extinct. These percentages reflect a minor variation from the previous 

2002–2004 Biennial Report, and reflect three of the newly listed species with declining 

population trends. 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 

(301) 713-1401 

This report is available online via the NMFS Office of Protected Resources website at 

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

3
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report 

ESA-LISTED SPECIES UNDER NMFS JURISDICTION OCCURING IN U.STable 1. ESA-listed species under NMFS jurisdiction including listing status, trends, priority numbers, and recovery plan statu

Species/ESU/DPS1 Date Listed / Reclassified ESA Status Population/ESU Trend Recovery Priority Number2 Status of R

SEA TURTLES 

Green sea turtle -Breeding colony populations in Florida, Pacific coast Mexico 

7/28/1978 Endangered Increasing (FL); 

Declining (Mexico) 

5 Complete

-Rangewide 7/28/1978 Threatened Declining 5 Completed 01/199

(Atl

Hawksbill sea turtle 6/2/1970 Endangered Declining 1 Completed 01/199

(Atl

Kemp’s Ridley sea turtle 12/2/1970 Endangered Increasing 5 Completed 08/199

Leatherback sea turtle 6/2/1970 Endangered Declining (Pacific); 

Mixed (Atlantic) 

1 Completed 01/199

(Atl

Loggerhead sea turtle 7/28/1978 Threatened Mixed (Pacific); 

Declining (Atlantic) 

5 Completed 01/199

(Atlantic) - U

Olive Ridley sea turtle -Breeding colony populations of Pacific coast Mexico 

7/28/1978 Endangered Mixed 5 Complete

-Rangewide PACIFIC SALMON 

7/28/1978 Threatened Mixed 5 Complete

Northwest Region -Lower Columbia River Chinook ESU 

3/24/1999; 

6/28/20053 

Threatened Increasing 1 Partial Draft Co

(Washington); Under 

-Lower Columbia River Coho ESU 

6/28/20053 Threatened Declining 1 Under De

-Puget Sound Chinook ESU 3/24/1999; 

6/28/20053 

Threatened Increasing 1 Complete

-Snake River Fall-run Chinook ESU 

4/22/1992; 

6/28/20053 

Threatened Increasing 1 Draft Completed 03

Under De

-Snake River Spring/Summer-run Chinook ESU 

4/22/1992; 

6/28/20053 

Threatened Increasing 1 Draft Completed 03

Under De

-Upper Columbia River, Spring Run Chinook ESU 

3/24/1999; 

6/28/20053 Endangered Increasing 1 Draft Comp

4
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report 

-Upper Willamette River Chinook ESU 

3/24/1999; 

6/28/20053 

Threatened Increasing 1 Under De

-Columbia River chum ESU 3/25/1999; 

6/28/20053 

Threatened Increasing 1 Partial Draft Co

(Washington); Under 

-Hood Canal Summer-run chum ESU 

3/25/1999; 

6/28/20053 

Threatened Increasing 1 Draft Comp

-Ozette Lake sockeye ESU 3/25/1999; 

6/28/20053 

Threatened Unknown 1 Under De

-Snake River sockeye ESU 11/20/1991; 

6/28/20053 Endangered Mixed 2 Draft Completed 03

Under De

-Lower Columbia River steelhead DPS 

3/19/1998; 

1/5/20063 

Threatened Increasing 1 Partial Draft Co

(Washington); Under 

-Middle Columbia River steelhead DPS 

3/25/1999; 

1/5/20063 

Threatened Increasing 1 Draft Comp

-Snake River Basin steelhead DPS 

8/18/1997; 

1/5/20063 

Threatened Stable 1 Under De

-Upper Columbia River steelhead DPS 

8/18/1997; 

1/5/20063 

Threatened Increasing 1 Draft Comp

-Upper Willamette River steelhead DPS 

3/25/1999; 

1/5/20063 

Threatened Increasing 1 Under De

Northwest and Southwest Regions -Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast coho ESU 

5/6/1997; 

6/28/20053 

Threatened Mixed 1 Under De

Southwest Region -Northern California steelhead DPS 

6/7/2000; 

1/5/20063 

Threatened Declining 5 Under De

-California Central Valley steelhead DPS 

3/19/1998; 

1/5/20063 

Threatened Declining 7 Under De

-Central California Coast steelhead DPS 

8/18/1997; 

1/5/20063 

Threatened Declining 3 Under De

-South-Central California Coast steelhead DPS 

8/18/1997; 

1/5/20063 

Threatened Unknown 3 Under De

-Southern California steelhead DPS 

8/18/1997; 

05/01/20024; 

1/5/20063 

Endangered Unknown; likely 

declining 

3 Under De

-Central California Coast coho ESU 

10/31/1996; 

6/28/20053 Endangered Declining 1 Under De

-California Coastal Chinook ESU 

9/16/1999 

6/28/20053 

Threatened Mixed 3 Under De

5
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report 

-Sacramento River Winter-run Chinook ESU 

8/4/1989; 

11/5/1990; 

1/4/19945; 

6/28/20053 

Endangered Increasing 3 Draft Complete

Devel

-Central Valley Spring-run Chinook ESU 

9/16/1999; 

6/28/20053 

Threatened Increasing 7 Under De

ATLANTIC SALMON Gulf of Maine DPS 11/17/2000 Endangered Declining 1 Complete

NON-SALMONID FISH Smalltooth sawfish - U.S. DPS 4/1/2003 Endangered Unknown 7 Draft Comp

Gulf sturgeon 9/30/1991 Threatened Stable 8 Complete

Shortnose sturgeon 3/11/1967 Endangered Mixed 5 CompleteGreen sturgeon - southern DPS 4/7/2006 Threatened Unknown; likely 

Declining 

5 N

PLANTS Johnson's seagrass 9/14/1998 Threatened Stable 7 Complete

INVERTEBRATES White abalone 5/29/2001 Endangered Declining 2 Draft Comp

Elkhorn coral 5/9/2006 Threatened Declining 7 NStaghorn coral 5/9/2006 Threatened Declining 7 NSEALS AND SEA LIONS Caribbean monk seal 3/11/1967 Endangered Presumed Extinct 12 N

Guadalupe fur seal 12/16/1985 Threatened Increasing 10 NHawaiian monk seal 11/23/1976 Endangered Mixed 1 Completed 03/19

Complete

Steller sea lion - eastern DPS 4/10/1990; 

11/26/1990; 

5/5/976 

Threatened Increasing 10 Completed 12/19

Complete

Steller sea lion - western DPS 4/10/1990; 

11/26/1990; 

5/5/976 

Endangered Declining 7 Completed 12/19

Complete

6
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report 

WHALES 

Blue whale 6/2/1970 Endangered Unknown 7 Complete

Bowhead whale 6/2/1970 Endangered Increasing 9 N

Fin whale 6/2/1970 Endangered Unknown 7 Draft Comp

Humpback whale 6/2/1970 Endangered Increasing 3 Complete

Northern right whale 6/2/1970 Endangered Unknown 1 Completed 05/20

Developm

Sei whale 6/2/1970 Endangered Unknown 3 Draft Completed 07/Sperm whale 6/2/1970 Endangered Unknown 7 Draft Comp

Killer whale 11/18/2005 Endangered Increasing 3 Draft Comp

NOTES FOR TABLE 1: 

1 ESU = Evolutionarily Significant Unit; DPS = Distinct Population Segment. 2 Recovery Priority Numbers are designated according to guidelines published by NMFS on June 15, 1990 (55 FR 24296). Priorities ar

(high) to 12 (low) based on the following factors: degree of threat, recovery potential, and conflict with development projects or otheAppendix B for further information on NMFS Recovery Priority Numbers, including criteria used to designate numbers. 

3In Alsea Valley Alliance v. Evans, 161 F. Supp. 2d 1154 (D. Or. 2001) (Alsea), the U.S. District Court in Eugene, Oregon, ruled that N

hatchery fish within the ESU when listing. Although the Alsea ruling affected only one ESU, subsequent to the ruling, NMFS initiate

27 ESUs and, in 2005, re-listed 15 ESUs of salmon with revised definitions of the populations to be included in the ESU, delisted on

and listed one ESU (Lower Columbia River coho); and in 2006, re-listed 10 ESUs of steelhead (and called them DPSs). 

4 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 

5/1/2002. 

5 This ESU was first emergency-listed as threatened on 8/4/1989, then officially listed as threatened on 11/5/1990, then reclassified as e6 This species was first listed as threatened via a 240-day emergency rule on 4/10/1990, then officially listed as threatened in a final rul

separated the species into western and eastern DPSs via a final rule on 5/5/1997, which maintained the eastern DPS as threatened and 

DPS as endangered. 

7
 

 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

SEA TURTLE RECOVERY 

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. Within these species, two 

regionally important distinct population segments (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. 

Green Sea Turtle (Chelonia mydas) 

Date Listed: July 28, 1978 

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 breeding 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.1 In 

the United States, the nesting populations in 

Hawaii (Figure 1) and Florida (Figure 2) have 

been documented as increasing over the past 

10 to 20 years. Age at sexual maturity is 

estimated as between 30 and 50 years. Thus, 

caution is warranted when interpreting shortterm nesting trend data. Figure 1. Estimated number of female green turtles nesting 

at East Island, French Frigate Shoals, Hawaiian Archipelago, 

1973–2006. 

Estimated Green Turtle Nesting at 

East Island, French Frigate Shoals 

0 

100 

200 

300 

400 

500 

600 

19731975197719791981198319851987198919911993199519971999200120032005 

Year 

Number of Nesting Females 

1

 Seminoff, J.A. 2002. Global status of the green turtle (Chelonia mydas): A summary of the 2001 stock assessment 

for the World Conservation Union Red List Programme. 

8
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

Green Turtle Nests - Florida Index Beaches 

1989 - 2006 

0 

1,000 

2,000 

3,000 

4,000 

5,000 

6,000 

7,000 

8,000 

1989 

1990 

1991 

1992 

1993 

1994 

1995 

1996 

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

Year 

Number of Nests 

Figure 2. Number of green turtle nests documented on Florida core index beaches, 1989–2006. 

Threats and Impacts in the Marine Environment: 

Threats and impacts found 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 in Mexico and Peru. Some known direct harvest of immature turtles 

and adults is reported to occur in Australia (by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders), 

Japan, Philippines, Indonesia, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, Federated States of Micronesia, 

Marshall Islands, Palau, and the United States flagged areas of Guam, Commonwealth of 

the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa. Direct harvest very likely occurs in 

many other areas within the green turtle’s range, especially in the western and central 

Pacific (e.g., Malaysia). 

•		 Incidental capture in commercial and artisanal fisheries – Fisheries known to interact 

with green turtles with varying degrees of impact include gillnet, longline, purse seine, 

pound net, trap/pot gear, dredge, and trawl fisheries. 

•		 Incidental capture in “ghost” fishing gear. 

•		 Parasites and diseases (e.g., fibropapillomatosis). 

•		 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. 

•		 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, which can result in marine habitat destruction via both direct and indirect 

effects and hopper dredges can entrain and kill turtles. 

9
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

•		 Destruction and degradation of nearshore foraging habitat from beach nourishment 

activities. 

•		 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. 

•		 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 resulting in changes in nesting beach habitat 

(e.g., shoreline erosion and beach temperature changes). 

Conservation Actions: 

Conservation actions conducted in 2004–2006 for recovery of the green turtle include the 

following: 

Pacific/Indian Ocean: 

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

satellite telemetry. 

•		 Conducted population identification of turtles caught as bycatch in fisheries, foraging 

turtles, and stranded turtles, using DNA analysis, flipper tagging, and satellite telemetry. 

•		 Supported a sea turtle data collection and skin sampling (for subsequent DNA analysis) 

project conducted by Women United Together in the Marshall Islands. 

•		 Identified habitat requirements using stable isotope analysis. 

•		 Identified trophic ecology of green turtles in the eastern Pacific. 

•		 Performed a diet analysis of oceanic green turtles in the North Pacific. 

•		 Conducted long-term monitoring and research of potential causes of and threats posed by 

fibropapillomatosis. 

•		 Continued U.S. fishery observer programs to monitor, report, and estimate green turtle 

bycatch. 

•		 Continued vital population assessment work under the Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage 

Network, including genetic sampling and analysis of age classes. 

•		 Supported marine debris cleanup efforts around the Hawaiian Islands. 

•		 Evaluated green turtle population trends and designed and evaluated conservation 

strategies via stochastic simulation models. 

•		 Monitored and tracked resident green turtles in south San Diego Bay, California; 

Galapagos Islands; Chile; Peru; and Pacific Mexico. 

•		 Supported monitoring efforts of index areas in Baja California, Mexico to obtain 

information on abundance, mortality, and biology.
 

•		 Supported aerial surveys of foraging and nesting areas in Mexico. 

•		 Supported Ecuador population assessment. 

•		 Conducted long-term nesting beach monitoring in the northwest Hawaiian Islands. 

•		 Conducted long-term, spatially extensive, capture-mark-recapture programs at six sites 

throughout Hawaiian archipelago. 

•		 Supported capacity building of the American Samoa Department of Marine and Wildlife 

Resources for nesting beach and in-water monitoring. 

•		 Conducted nesting beach and in-water monitoring in the Commonwealth of Northern 

Mariana Islands. 

10
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

•		 Supported capacity building of the Guam Department of Agriculture, Division of Aquatic 

and Wildlife Resources for nesting beach monitoring. 

•		 Supported nesting beach monitoring and tagging of nesting females on the outer islands 

of Yap State, Federated States of Micronesia. 

•		 Supported capacity building for the Republic of Palau, Division of Marine Resources to 

establish a monitoring system and conduct baseline studies of turtles and their habitats. 

•		 Supported monitoring and protection efforts of nesting beaches in Mexico, Galapagos 

Islands, and Costa Rica. 

•		 Supported the Marshall Islands Sea Turtle-Fisheries Interaction Outreach Education 

project to build sea turtle conservation and management capacity of the Marshall Islands 

Marine Resources Authority, including training of observers in sea turtle–fishery 

interaction mitigation techniques. 

•		 Supported an observer program in Peru to document the threat of shark and mahi mahi 

longline fisheries on green 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 regarding fishery mitigation techniques in Papua New Guinea, Marshall 

Islands, Indonesia, Vietnam, and New Caledonia. 

•		 Supported surveys of trawl and longline fishing crews at Indonesian ports to estimate 

capture rates of marine turtles. 

•		 Supported a trial observer program in Indonesian longline and trawl fisheries. 

•		 Supported a capacity building project for the Federated States of Micronesia National 

Ocean Resources Management Authority and the tuna longline industry to provide 

training on handling fishery-sea turtle interactions and on providing a foundation for 

future management activities. 

•		 Supported an observer program in the Chilean swordfish-directed longline fishery and 

provided circle hooks and technical support for experimental testing of modified gear. 

•		 Collaborated with foreign partners to export technologies through education and outreach 

and fishing gear experiments in Ecuador, Mexico, Guatemala, Costa Rica, Peru, Brazil, 

Columbia, Chile, Korea, Thailand, Hawaii, Japan, Philippines, Spain, Vietnam, 

Indonesia, and the Mediterranean. 

•		 Tested the efficacy of longline gear technology to reduce sea turtle interactions in Pacific 

Ocean high seas fisheries in collaboration with Japan. 

•		 Educated Hawaii-based longline fishery participants about sea turtle mitigation 

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

incidental to the fishery. 

•		 Conducted fishery mitigation experiments, including testing “stealth gear”, blue-dyed 

bait, deep day-time fishing, and new circle hook designs (barbless and whisker) in 

Hawaiian longline and shoreline fisheries, and longline fisheries in Costa Rica, Brazil, 

Guatemala, and the Azores. 

•		 Conducted turtle behavior and physiology research to understand longline gear and bait 

interactions and gear mitigation options, including contracting the development of 

computer and physical models of the biomechanics of turtle biting to study hook 

ingestion and resulting injuries. 

11
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

•		 Conducted comparative studies using satellite telemetry and oceanographic research 

techniques of foraging, migration, and pelagic habitat use of green turtles caught as 

bycatch in the Hawaii-based longline fishery versus turtles captured by other methods. 

•		 Supported education and collaborative work with Mexican halibut set gillnet and bottomset longline fisheries in Baja California to reduce turtle bycatch. 

•		 Continued turtle excluder device (TED) outreach and training efforts with various foreign 

governments 

•		 Supported the development of a Turtle Research Database System in collaboration with 

six international agencies. 

•		 Participated in the Indian Ocean Memorandum of Understanding on the Conservation 

and Management of Marine Turtles of the Indian Ocean and Southeast Asia. 

•		 Participated in the Inter-American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea 

Turtles. 

Atlantic Ocean: 

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

satellite telemetry. 

•		 Conducted population identification of turtles caught as bycatch in fisheries, foraging 

turtles, and stranded turtles, using DNA analysis, flipper tagging, and satellite telemetry. 

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

turtle abundance. 

•		 Identified habitat requirements using stable isotope analysis. 

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

the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. 

•		 Conducted long-term monitoring and research of potential causes of and threats posed by 

fibropapillomatosis. 

•		 Continued U.S. longline fishery observer program to monitor, report, and estimate green 

turtle bycatch. 

•		 Continued vital population assessment work under the Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage 

Network, including genetic sampling and analysis of age classes, and expanded the 

Network’s coverage on the eastern shore of Chesapeake Bay in Virginia. 

•		 Performed fresh-dead necropsies and sample analyses for turtles stranded in Virginia 

•		 Implemented a 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 and pound net leaders. 

•		 Required the use of chain mats on scallop dredges in the mid-Atlantic from May 1 to 

November 30 to reduce the severity of sea turtle interactions with this gear. 

•		 Required modified pound net leaders in the Virginia pound net fishery from May 6 to 

July 15 to reduce bycatch. 

•		 Supported sea turtle-pot fishery interaction study in Virginia waters. 

•		 Supported in-water population studies in the Maryland portion of Chesapeake Bay. 

•		 Supported a health assessment study on sea turtles incidentally captured in pound nets in 

Long Island, New York. 

•		 Supported characterizations (e.g., gear types used, fishing practices, turtle bycatch, etc.) 

of all fisheries occurring within state waters of all Atlantic and Gulf coast states. 

12
 
 

 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

•		 Developed a Geographic Information System for the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico that 

includes data layers on sea turtle sightings, fishing effort, sea turtle bycatch, and 

oceanographic conditions. 

•		 Conducted gear research to develop TEDs suitable for use in non-shrimp trawl fisheries, 

such as the flynet, whelk, and scallop trawl fisheries. 

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

•		 Participated in the Inter-American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea 

Turtles. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

Priority recovery actions needed for the green sea turtle include the following: 

•		 Support education and outreach to reduce the direct take of eggs and turtles, and support 

the prohibition of direct take of juvenile and adult green turtles in their foraging habitats. 

•		 Develop and implement solutions to reduce and eliminate sea turtle interactions with 

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. 

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

turtle interactions in pelagic and coastal fisheries. 

•		 Implement regulations in the United States requiring the use of TEDs wherever the 

distribution of sea turtles overlaps with the use of trawling gear known to take turtles. 

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

monitoring programs. 

•		 Further identify stock structure of nesting populations in the South Pacific region using 

DNA analysis. 

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 five. This represents a moderate 

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

activities. 

13
 
 

 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

Hawksbill Sea Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) 

Date Listed: June 2, 1970 

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, St. Croix, the U.S. Virgin Islands), and a few have begun 

to improve (Mona Island, Puerto Rico) or stabilize 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 destruction and degradation of coral reef habitats that provide 

critically important foraging and resting areas. 

Threats and Impacts in the Marine Environment: 

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

•		 Direct take of all life stages (including eggs). 

•		 Destruction and degradation of habitat – Hawksbills depend heavily on coral reefs for 

shelter and food. 

•		 Global climate change and sea level rise resulting in changes to nesting and foraging 

beach habitat (e.g., shoreline erosion, beach temperature changes, coral reef degradation 

and destruction). 

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

effects. 

•		 Marine debris – 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 commercial and recreational fishing gear including driftnets, seines, 

trawls, longlines, 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 

common. 

•		 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 use of explosives during exploration activities) can kill 

or injure turtles, and may destroy or damage habitat. 

•		 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. 

14
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

Conservation Actions: 

Conservation actions conducted in 2004–2006 for recovery of the hawksbill turtle include the 

following: 

Pacific/Indian Ocean: 

•		 Supported nesting beach monitoring in the main Hawaiian Islands. 

•		 Controlled non-native predators of eggs and hatchlings in the main Hawaiian Islands 

•		 Supported satellite and radio telemetry studies of post-nesting females in the main 

Hawaiian Islands. 

•		 Supported capacity building of the American Samoa Department of Marine and 

Wildlife Resources for nesting beach and in-water monitoring. 

•		 Conducted nesting beach and in-water monitoring in the Commonwealth of Northern 

Mariana Islands. 

•		 Supported capacity building of the Guam Department of Agriculture, Division of 

Aquatic and Wildlife Resources for nesting beach monitoring. 

•		 Supported nesting beach monitoring and tagging of nesting females on the outer 

islands of Yap State, Federated States of Micronesia. 

•		 Supported capacity building for the Republic of Palau, Division of Marine Resources 

to establish a monitoring system and conduct baseline studies of turtles and their 

habitats. 

•		 Supported the Marshall Islands Sea Turtle-Fisheries Interaction Outreach Education 

project to build sea turtle conservation and management capacity of the Marshall 

Islands Marine Resources Authority. 

•		 Assisted national observer programs and supported capacity building through incountry fishery observer training to improve sea turtle species identification, 

reporting, handling, and education regarding fishery-turtle interaction mitigation 

techniques in Papua New Guinea, Indonesia, Vietnam, Marshall Islands and New 

Caledonia. 

•		 Supported a survey of trawl and longline fishing crews at Indonesian ports to estimate 

capture rates of marine turtles. 

•		 Supported a trial observer program in Indonesian longline and trawl fisheries. 

•		 Supported a sea turtle data collection and skin sampling (for subsequent DNA 

analysis) project conducted by Women United Together in the Marshall Islands. 

•		 Convened the Annual Hawaii Hawksbill Turtle Recovery Implementation meeting in 

June 2006. 

•		 Supported the development of a Turtle Research Database System in collaboration 

with six international agencies. 

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

•		 Participated in the Inter-American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of 

Sea Turtles. 

•		 Participated in the Indian Ocean Memorandum of Understanding on the Conservation 

and Management of Marine Turtles of the Indian Ocean and Southeast Asia. 

15
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

Atlantic Ocean: 

•		 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). 

•		 Identified population structure of nesting turtles in St. Croix, the U.S. Virgin Islands; 

Costa Rica; Nicaragua; and Guadeloupe using DNA analysis. 

•		 Conducted population identification of foraging turtles from St. Croix, the U.S. 

Virgin Islands, and Nicaragua along with stranded turtles off the coast of Texas using 

DNA analysis. 

•		 Continued coordination and support of the Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network 

in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

Priority recovery actions needed for the hawksbill sea turtle include the following: 

•		 Stop the direct harvest of hawksbill turtles and eggs through foreign nation capacity 

building, education, and law enforcement support. 

•		 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) 

in the Hawaiian population. 

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

Recovery Priority Number: 1 

The recovery priority number for the hawksbill sea turtle is one. This represents a high 

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

activities. 

16
 
 

 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle (Lepidochelys kempii) 

Date Listed: December 2, 1970 

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. A few Kemp’s ridley nests are 

found along Texas beaches each year. 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 12,143 nests documented in 2006 (Figure 3). 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. 

Kemp's Ridley Nesting Trends 

0 

10000 

20000 

30000 

40000 

50000 

1947197819801982198419861988199019921994199619982000200220042006 

YEAR 

NUMBER OF NESTS 

An estimated 40,000 nesting females 

nested on a single day in 1947. 

Figure 3. Kemp’s ridley nesting trends in Mexico, 1978 - 2006. The 1947 point is a single reference 

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

believed to be much higher. 

17
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

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 commercial and recreational fishing gear, including trawls, purse seines, 

pound nets, traps and pots, hook and line, dredges, and gillnets. 

•		 Marine debris – 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 

common. 

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

effects and hopper dredges can entrain and kill turtles. 

•		 Oil production – Marine turtles are at risk when encountering an oil spill, as respiration, 

skin, blood chemistry and salt gland functions are affected. 

•		 Pesticides, heavy metals, and polychlorinated biphenyls (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. 

•		 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. 

•		 Climate change and resulting changes in nesting beach habitat (e.g., shoreline erosion and 

beach temperature changes). 

Conservation Actions: 

Conservation actions conducted in 2004–2006 for recovery of the Kemp’s ridley turtle include 

the following: 

•		 Identified stock structure of nesting turtles at Padre Island, Texas and Rancho Nuevo, 

Mexico using DNA analysis. 

•		 Supported infrastructure maintenance at nesting beach camps in Mexico. 

•		 Supported research on relocated nests versus nest left in place to guide future 

conservation efforts. 

•		 Supported surveys for stranded turtles in the state of Tamaulipas, Mexico and purchased 

tag readers and other equipment for researchers to identify and track nesting females and 

stranded turtles. 

•		 Continued vital work through the Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network, including 

collecting age samples for analysis at the National Sea Turtle Aging Laboratory. 

•		 Implemented a Sea Turtle Disentanglement Network in the Northeast Region. 

•		 Expanded stranding coverage on the eastern shore of Chesapeake Bay in Virginia. 

•		 Performed fresh-dead necropsies and sample analyses for turtles stranded in Virginia. 

•		 Supported the New England Aquarium and Wellfleet Audubon rescue and rehabilitation 

of cold stun turtles. 

18
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

•		 Required the use of chain mats on scallop dredges in the mid-Atlantic from May 1 to 

November 30 to reduce the severity of sea turtle interactions with this gear. 

•		 Required modified pound net leaders in the Virginia pound net fishery from May 6 to 

July 15 to reduce bycatch. 

•		 Supported in-water population studies in the Maryland portion of Chesapeake Bay. 

•		 Supported a health assessment study on sea turtles incidentally captured in pound nets in 

Long Island, New York. 

•		 Supported sea turtle-pot fishery interaction study in Virginia waters. 

•		 Conducted gear research to develop TEDs suitable for use in non-shrimp trawl fisheries 

such as the flynet, whelk, and scallop trawl fisheries. 

•		 Supported characterizations (e.g., gear types used, fishing practices, turtle bycatch, etc.) 

of all fisheries occurring within state waters of all Atlantic and Gulf coast states. 

•		 Developed a Geographic Information System for the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico that 

includes data layers on sea turtle sightings, fishing effort, sea turtle bycatch, and 

oceanographic conditions. This tool will enable NMFS to identify and focus efforts in 

areas where sea turtle bycatch is highest. 

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

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. 

Recovery Priority Number: 5 

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

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

activities. 

19
 
 

 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

Leatherback Sea Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) 

Date Listed: June 2, 1970 

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: 

In the Pacific, the number of nesting leatherback turtles is declining at all key nesting beaches 

except Jamursba-Medi Beach, Indonesia, where there is a long-term decline in the nesting 

population, but a short-term (since 1999) stability in nesting numbers. Leatherbacks were 

extirpated from Malaysia in recent years, and the potential for Pacific-basin wide extirpation 

remains. 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 Costa Rica. 

Threats and Impacts in the Marine Environment: 

Threats and impacts found in the marine environment affecting leatherback turtles include the 

following: 

•		 Incidental capture in both commercial and artisanal fisheries, including drift and fixed 

gillnet, longline, purse seine, trap and pot, pound net, dredge, 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 

common. 

•		 Marine debris – Leatherbacks can ingest a wide variety of marine debris and effects 

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

•		 Entanglement – Leatherbacks 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 the use of explosives during exploration activities) can 

kill or injure turtles, and may destroy or damage habitat. 

•		 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. 

•		 Illegal harvest of juveniles and adults. 

•		 Habitat destruction and degradation due to development and tourism. 

•		 Global climate change and sea level rise resulting in changes to nesting and foraging 

habitat (e.g., shoreline erosion, beach temperature changes). 

20
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

Conservation Actions: 

Conservation actions conducted in 2004–2006 for recovery of the leatherback turtle include the 

following: 

 Pacific/Indian Ocean: 

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

California and the Pacific Northwest. 

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

California ecosystem. 

•		 Conducted capture/tagging/tracking of foraging leatherbacks off Monterey, California. 

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

satellite telemetry. 

•		 Conducted population identification of turtles caught as bycatch in fisheries, foraging 

turtles, and stranded turtles, using DNA analysis, flipper tagging, and satellite telemetry. 

•		 Completed a mixed stock analysis of leatherback turtles along the California coast. 

•		 Continued vital population assessment work under the Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage 

Network, including genetic sampling and analysis of age classes. 

•		 Evaluated leatherback turtle population trends and designed and evaluated conservation 

strategies via stochastic simulation models. 

•		 Supported monitoring and protection of leatherbacks nesting in Mexico and Costa Rica. 

Currently, all primary nesting beaches in Mexico are protected (although egg poaching 

still exists), and secondary nesting beaches are partially protected. 

•		 Supported aerial surveys of leatherback nesting beaches in Mexico. 

•		 Conducted aerial surveys to determine abundance of nesting leatherback turtles in Papua 

New Guinea, Indonesia, Solomon Islands, and Latin America. 

•		 Conducted aerial surveys and ground monitoring of leatherback nesting beaches and 

provided technical and management support to the leatherback project in Papua New 

Guinea. 

•		 Attached satellite tags to turtles in Papua New Guinea, Indonesia, Solomon Islands, and 

Latin America to gather information regarding migratory movements and pelagic habitat 

use. 

•		 Assisted 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 in Indonesia, Vietnam, and New 

Caledonia. 

•		 Supported an observer program in Chilean swordfish-directed longline fishery and 

provided circle hooks and technical support for experimental testing modified gear. 

•		 Supported an observer program in Peru to document the threat of shark and mahi mahi 

longline fisheries on leatherback turtles and to document the direct harvest of 

leatherbacks. 

•		 Investigated post-hooking survival of turtles caught as bycatch in longline fisheries in 

Hawaii, Costa Rica, and Brazil using satellite tagging. 

•		 Reduced leatherback interaction rates and mortality rates in U.S. Pacific swordfishdirected longline fleets by requiring large circle hooks combined with non-squid bait; 

requiring proper handling of hooked and entangled leatherbacks; and requiring use of 

disentangling and de-hooking equipment such as dip nets, line cutters, and de-hookers. 

21
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

•		 Conducted fishery mitigation experiments including testing “stealth gear”, blue-dyed 

bait, deep day-time fishing, and new circle hook designs (barbless and whisker) in 

Hawaiian longline and shoreline fisheries, and longline fisheries in Costa Rica, Brazil, 

Guatemala, and the Azores. 

•		 Conducted turtle behavior and physiology research to understand longline gear and bait 

interactions and gear mitigation options, including contracting the development of 

computer and physical models of the biomechanics of turtle biting to study hook 

ingestion and resulting injuries. 

•		 Supported a capacity building project for the Federated States of Micronesia National 

Ocean Resources Management Authority and the tuna longline industry to provide 

training on handling fishery-sea turtle interactions and on providing a foundation for 

future management activities. 

•		 Promoted “best practice technologies” in the major longline fleets of the Pacific. 

•		 Supported a project in Papua New Guinea to mitigate tuna and prawn fisheries 

interactions with marine turtles and to build the capacity of the National Fisheries 

Authority. 

•		 Tested the efficacy of longline gear technology to reduce sea turtle interactions in Pacific 

Ocean high seas fisheries in collaboration with Japan. 

•		 Educated Hawaii-based longline fishery participants about sea turtle mitigation 

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

incidental to the fishery. 

•		 Supported a trial observer program in Indonesian longline and trawl fisheries. 

•		 Supported a survey of trawl and longline fishing crews at Indonesian ports to estimate 

capture rates of marine turtles. 

•		 Supported a trial observer program in Indonesian longline and trawl fisheries. 

•		 Reduced turtle interaction rates in the U.S. California/Oregon drift gillnet fisheries for 

swordfish and thresher shark by implementing and enforcing a time/area closure in 

central and northern California in time/area of high leatherback concentrations. 

•		 Supported the Marshall Islands Sea Turtle-Fisheries Interaction Outreach Education 

project to build sea turtle conservation and management capacity of the Marshall Islands 

Marine Resources Authority. 

•		 Supported development of a collaborative framework between U.S. research institutions 

to combine aerial survey data to understand links between leatherback foraging ecology, 

their physical and biological environment, and climate processes. 

•		 Supported development of a collaborative framework to combine North Pacific-wide 

telemetry data with independent oceanographic data sets to understand movements in 

relation to physical and biological environments and climate processes. 

•		 Evaluated the cost-effectiveness of alternative conservation strategies for leatherback 

turtles with a focus on nesting site protection. 

•		 Supported War-mon Nesting Beach Project in Papua Indonesia. 

•		 Supported monitoring and protection of leatherback nesting beaches in the western 

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

leatherbacks. Locations included Papua New Guinea (“no harvest” moratorium set up on 

Kamiali Beach in 2003; monitoring index beaches and tagging females), Indonesia 

(ongoing monitoring and protection, tagging, and telemetry), Solomon Islands (new 

22
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

monitoring), and Vanuatu (monitoring and protection of known leatherback nesting 

beach; surveying for other possible leatherback nesting beaches). 

•		 Supported work with Kei Islands villagers to reduce and/or eliminate direct harvest of 

adult leatherbacks in marine and coastal habitats (e.g., quantified socioeconomic 

parameters, established a harvest baseline, and addressed alternative means of livelihood) 

•		 Conducted a socio-economic study and outreach and education for the Papua New 

Guinea leatherback project. 

•		 Supported a resource economist to review current efforts to optimize sea turtle 

conservation and management efforts. 

•		 Investigated costs of establishing an endowment for the long-term protection of the 

Arnavon Islands in the Solomon Islands. 

•		 Worked cooperatively with Canada to identify and address threats to leatherback turtles 

in Canadian waters and contributed to the development of recovery plans for leatherback 

turtles in Canada. 

•		 Supported research to identify sustainable land-based conservation activities for 

leatherback turtles in the Solomon Islands and Indonesia. 

•		 Supported the development of a Turtle Research Database System in collaboration with 

six international agencies. 

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

•		 Participated in the Indian Ocean Memorandum of Understanding on the Conservation 

and Management of Marine Turtles of the Indian Ocean and Southeast Asia. 

•		 Participated in preparatory meetings, signing meeting and provided comments on the text 

of the Tri-National Partnership on the Conservation and Management of Western Pacific 

Leatherback Turtles Memorandum of Understanding between Papua New Guinea, 

Solomon Islands and Indonesia.

 Atlantic Ocean: 

•		 Continued vital population assessment work under the Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage 

Network, including genetic sampling and analysis of age classes. 

•		 Assessed population status through data collection at nesting beaches. 

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

satellite telemetry. 

•		 Conducted population identification of turtles caught as bycatch in fisheries, foraging 

turtles, and stranded turtles, using DNA analysis, flipper tagging, and satellite telemetry. 

•		 Supported research and monitoring of one of the largest seasonal foraging populations of 

leatherbacks in the Atlantic, found in Canada. 

•		 Worked cooperatively with Canada to identify and address threats to leatherback turtles 

in Canadian waters, and contributed to the development of recovery plans for leatherback 

turtles in Canada. 

•		 Implemented a 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 and pound net leaders. 

•		 Required the use of chain mats on scallop dredges in the mid-Atlantic from May 1 to 

November 30 to reduce the severity of sea turtle interactions with this gear. 

23
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

•		 Required modified pound net leaders in the Virginia pound net fishery from May 6 to 

July 15 to reduce bycatch. 

•		 Supported sea turtle-pot fishery interaction study in Virginia waters. 

•		 Conducted gear research to develop TEDs suitable for use in non-shrimp trawl fisheries, 

such as the flynet, whelk, and scallop trawl fisheries. 

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

participants to gather and assess the latest, most complete data available on Atlantic 

leatherback nesting and population information. 

•		 Supported characterizations (e.g., gear types used, fishing practices, turtle bycatch, etc.) 

of all fisheries occurring within state waters of all Atlantic and Gulf coast states. 

•		 Developed a Geographic Information System for the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico that 

includes data layers on sea turtle sightings, fishing effort, sea turtle bycatch, and 

oceanographic conditions. This tool will enable NMFS to identify and focus efforts in 

areas where sea turtle bycatch is highest. 

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

•		 Participated in the Inter-American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea 

Turtles. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

Priority recovery actions needed for the leatherback sea turtle include the following: 

•		 Reduce bycatch in commercial and artisanal fisheries. 

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

turtle interactions in pelagic and coastal fisheries. 

•		 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. 

•		 Continue and improve population assessments, especially estimates of population size 

and structure. 

•		 Identify all key nesting beaches in Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, and Indonesia. 

•		 Provide education/outreach to reduce harvest of eggs and turtles. 

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

pot gear off New England, throughout the Gulf of Maine, and wherever else the use of 

pot gears overlaps with sea turtle distribution. 

•		 Support nesting beach management/census programs to promote increased hatchling 

production. 

•		 Support research to determine migration pathways and identify important foraging 

grounds in the Atlantic. 

•		 Implement regulations in the United States requiring the use of TEDs wherever the 

distribution of sea turtles overlaps with the use of trawling gear known to take turtles. 

Recovery Priority Number: 1 

The recovery priority number for the leatherback sea turtle is one. 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. 

24
 
 

 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Caretta caretta) 

Date Listed: July 28, 1978 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: 

Pacific: A final recovery plan was approved on January 12, 1998. 

Atlantic: A final recovery plan was approved on December 26, 1991. A revised plan is currently 

under development. 

Species Status: 

In the Pacific, loggerhead nesting populations are at best stable, if not declining, at the major 

nesting areas in Japan and Australia. No more than 2,000 females are estimated to nest annually 

in the Pacific (Table 2, Figure 4) (note: females deposit multiple nests within a nesting season). 

There is no loggerhead nesting in the U.S. Pacific. In the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, 

loggerheads primarily nest from North Carolina through Florida, with Florida hosting the largest 

assemblage. Total estimated nesting in the U.S. 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 to 2,000 loggerhead nests have been documented annually in recent 

years, and nesting has been declining. 

Loggerhead Nesting In Japan 1998-2006 

0 

1,000 

2,000 

3,000 

4,000 

5,000 

6,000 

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 

Year 

Number of Nests 

Figure 4. Annual loggerhead nests documented on Japanese beaches, 1988 - 2006.2 

2 Data from 1998-2002 are from Kinan (2006); data from 2003-2006 were presented at the Sea turtle Association of Japan’s 17th Annual Sea 

turtle Symposium, Kumano, Japan, November 2006. 

25
 
 

 

 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

Table 2. Status and trends of Pacific loggerhead nesting subpopulations. 

Subpopulations No. of Females Nesting Annually Trends 

Japan <1,000 Mixed3 

Australia (eastern, 70% of nesting) <500 Declining 

New Caledonia tens or low hundreds Unknown 

Loggerhead Nests on Florida Index Beaches 1989 - 2006 

0 

10,000 

20,000 

30,000 

40,000 

50,000 

60,000 

70,000 

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 

Year 

Number of Nests 

Figure 5. Number of loggerhead nests documented on Florida core index beaches, 1989 - 2006. 

Threats and Impacts in the Marine Environment: 

Threats and impacts found in the marine environment affecting loggerhead turtles include the 

following: 

•		 Incidental catch in commercial and artisanal fisheries – Some fisheries known to interact 

with loggerheads include trawl, gillnet, longline, purse seine, pound net, dredge, and 

pot/trap fisheries. 

•		 Directed take of immature loggerheads outside the U.S. 

•		 Marine debris – Loggerheads can ingest a wide variety of marine debris and effects 

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

•		 Entanglement - Loggerheads can become entangled in marine debris, such as “ghost” 

fishing gear and discarded shipping and packing materials. 

•		 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. 

•		 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. 

3 There has been an overall long-term decline of the Japanese population of loggerheads (50– 90 percent decline in the past 50 years), although 

Yakushima Island (where approximately 40 percent of females nest in Japan) has shown an increase only in recent years. 

26
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

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

•		 Limitation of prey – Overfishing may lead to reduction of key prey species for 

loggerheads. 

•		 Oil and gas exploration, development, and transportation – Underwater explosions (e.g., 

gas and oil structure removal and the use of explosives) can kill or injure turtles, and may 

destroy or damage habitat. 

•		 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. 

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

effects and hopper dredges can entrain and kill turtles. 

•		 Global climate change and sea level rise resulting in changes to nesting and foraging 

habitat (e.g., shoreline erosion, beach temperature changes). 

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

Conservation Actions: 

Conservation actions conducted in 2004–2006 for recovery of the loggerhead turtle include the 

following: 

Pacific/Indian Ocean: 

•		 Conducted aerial surveys to collect the distribution and abundance data necessary for 

population assessments of loggerheads. 

•		 Performed aerial surveys in Baja California to quantify population density and habitat use 

of loggerhead turtles in off-shore waters of Baja. 

•		 Identified stock home ranges and conducted population identification of foraging and 

stranded loggerheads and loggerheads caught as bycatch using DNA analysis. 

•		 Reported on the feasibility of using photogrammetry to determine abundance, size, and 

sex of loggerheads in Baja California. Photogrammetry is the measurement of objects 

using photographs or electronically stored imagery. 

•		 Supported monitoring and protection efforts of nesting beaches in Japan (Minabe-Senri 

and Hii-Horikiri beaches, and Maehama and Inakahama beaches on Yakushima Island). 

•		 Supported loggerhead nesting beach management at five sites at Staj Beach, Japan. 

•		 Estimated mortality from human activities in the Pacific ocean from NMFS observer data 

in the Hawaii-based longline fishery, California/Oregon drift gillnet fishery, and ongoing 

studies in Baja California, Mexico. 

•		 Supported education and collaborative work with Mexican halibut set gillnet and bottomset longline fisheries in Baja California to reduce take of turtles. 

•		 Reduced interaction rates and mortality rates in U.S. Pacific swordfish-directed 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 de-hookers; and implementing closures. 

•		 Supported an observer program in the Chilean swordfish–directed longline fishery and 

provided circle hooks and technical support for experiments testing modified gear. 

•		 Supported an observer program in Peru to document the threat of shark and mahi mahi 

longline fisheries on loggerhead turtles. 

•		 Used satellite telemetry to conduct research to investigate post-hooking survival of turtles 

included in the bycatch of longline fisheries in Hawaii, Costa Rica, and Brazil. 

27
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

•		 Conducted fishery mitigation experiments including testing “stealth gear,” blue-dyed 

bait, deep day-time fishing, and new circle hook designs (barbless and whisker) in 

Hawaiian longline and shoreline fisheries, and longline fisheries in Costa Rica, Brazil, 

Guatemala, and the Azores. 

•		 Conducted turtle behavior and physiology research to understand longline gear and bait 

interactions and gear mitigation options, including contracting the development of 

computer and physical models of the biomechanics of turtle biting to study hook 

ingestion and resulting injuries. 

•		 Investigated migration routes and preferred oceanic habitats by attaching satellite 

transmitters and tracking loggerheads from nesting beaches in Japan, from post-release in 

U.S. longline gear, and from foraging grounds off Baja California (Mexico). 

•		 Supported the development of a Turtle Research Database System in collaboration with 

six international agencies. 

•		 Evaluated loggerhead turtle population trends and designed and evaluated conservation 

strategies via stochastic simulation models. 

•		 Conducted comparative studies of loggerhead turtle foraging, migration, and pelagic 

habitat use of turtles caught in the Hawaii-based longline fishery versus turtles caught via 

other situations using satellite telemetry and oceanographic research. 

•		 Tested the efficacy of longline gear technology to reduce sea turtle interactions in Pacific 

Ocean high seas fisheries in collaboration with Japan. 

•		 Educated Hawaii-based longline fishery participants about sea turtle mitigation 

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

incidental to the fishery. 

•		 Supported a survey of trawl and longline fishing crews at Indonesian ports to estimate 

capture rates of marine turtles. 

•		 Supported a trial observer program in Indonesian longline and trawl fisheries. 

•		 Supported the Marshall Islands Sea Turtle-Fisheries Interaction Outreach Education 

project to build sea turtle conservation and management capacity of the Marshall Islands 

Marine Resources Authority. 

•		 Continued vital population assessment work under the Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage 

Network, including genetic sampling and analysis of age classes. 

•		 Supported a loggerhead turtle cooperative research and management workshop in March 

2005 to facilitate recovery of loggerhead turtles and guide conservation efforts in the 

Pacific Ocean. 

•		 Participated in the Indian Ocean Memorandum of Understanding on the Conservation 

and Management of Marine Turtles of the Indian Ocean and Southeast Asia. 

•		 Supported evaluation of the 2005 tsunami’s effect on sea turtles in Thailand. 

•		 Participated in the Inter-American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea 

Turtles. 

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

Atlantic Ocean: 

•		 Supported characterizations (e.g., gear types used, fishing practices, turtle bycatch, etc.) 

of all fisheries occurring within state waters of all Atlantic and Gulf coast states. 

28
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

•		 Developed a Geographic Information System for the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico that 

includes data layers on sea turtle sightings, fishing effort, sea turtle bycatch, and 

oceanographic conditions. 

•		 Conducted gear research to develop TEDs suitable for use in non-shrimp trawl fisheries 

such as the flynet, whelk, and scallop trawl fisheries. 

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

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

scallop dredges and pound net leaders. 

•		 Required the use of chain mats on scallop dredges in the mid-Atlantic from May 1 to 

November 30 to reduce the severity of sea turtle interactions with this gear. 

•		 Estimated bycatch of loggerheads in the Atlantic sea scallop dredge fishery. 

•		 Required modified pound net leaders in the Virginia pound net fishery from May 6 to 

July 15 to reduce turtle bycatch. 

•		 Supported in-water population studies in the Maryland portion of Chesapeake Bay. 

•		 Supported a health assessment study on sea turtles incidentally captured in pound nets in 

Long Island, New York. 

•		 Estimated loggerhead bycatch in the mid-Atlantic bottom otter trawl fishery, 1996-2004. 

•		 Supported sea turtle-pot fishery interaction study in Virginia waters. 

•		 Implemented a Sea Turtle Disentanglement Network in the Atlantic Northeast Region to 

address sea turtle entanglement in pot and other fishing gear. 

•		 Continued vital population assessment work under the Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage 

Network, including genetic sampling and analysis of age classes, and expanded the 

Network coverage on the eastern shore of Chesapeake Bay in Virginia. 

•		 Performed fresh-dead necropsies and sample analyses for turtles stranded in Virginia. 

•		 Supported a comprehensive investigation of a mass stranding event related to red tide in 

southwest Florida. 

•		 Identified stock structure of nesting females using DNA analysis and flipper tagging. 

•		 Conducted population identification of loggerheads using DNA analysis. 

•		 Supported assessment, monitoring, and mitigation of hurricane impacts on sea turtles in 

Florida. 

•		 Participated in the Inter-American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea 

Turtles. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

Priority recovery actions needed for the loggerhead sea turtle include the following: 

•		 Reduce incidental capture of loggerheads in commercial and artisanal fisheries. 

•		 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. 

•		 Reduce bycatch of loggerheads in the Mexican halibut set gillnet fishery. 

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

•		 Improve and refine estimation techniques for takes of sea turtles to ensure recovery 

criteria are met. 

•		 Improve and refine population estimates by implementing additional in-water studies to 

determine and monitor population trends. 

•		 Promote best management practices for nesting beaches in Japan. 

29
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

•		 Implement regulations in the United States requiring the use of TEDs wherever the 

distribution of loggerhead sea turtles overlaps with the use of trawling gear known to take 

turtles. 

•		 Improve understanding of the effects of commercial fishery harvest of key loggerhead 

prey species. 

Recovery Priority Number: 5 

The recovery priority number for the loggerhead sea turtle is five. This represents a moderate 

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

activities. 

30
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

Olive Ridley Sea Turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea) 

Date Listed: July 28, 1978 

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 3). 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 3. Status and trends of Pacific olive ridley nesting populations. 

Subpopulation No. of Females Nesting Annually Trend 

Mexico – Playa Escobilla 525,000 (nests) Increasing 

Costa Rica – Playa Ostional 450,000 - 600,000 Unknown1 

Costa Rica – Playa Nancite 25,000 – 50,000 Unknown 

Guatemala 4,300,000 (eggs) Declining 

Nicaragua Unknown Unknown 

India (Gahirmatha) 150,000 – 200,000 Mixed2 

Indonesia Scattered Unknown 

Malaysia Scattered Declining 

1 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.

2 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 (mass nestings of turtles) have been documented in recent years. 

Threats and Impacts in the Marine Environment: 

Threats and impacts found in the marine environment affecting olive ridley turtles include the 

following: 

•		 Direct harvest. 

•		 Incidental take in commercial and artisanal fisheries – Fisheries known to interact with 

olive ridleys, include gillnets (Chilean artisanal driftnet fishery for swordfish, Taiwanese 

coastal set net and gillnet fishery), longline fisheries (U.S. longline fleet for 

31
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

swordfish/tuna, Costa Rican longline fleet for mahi mahi), purse seine fisheries (U.S. and 

non-U.S. tuna purse seine fleet in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean), trawl fisheries 

(Costa Rican Pacific shrimp trawl fishery, Indian coastal trawl fisheries), and Peruvian 

artisanal 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 

common. 

•		 Global climate change and sea level rise resulting in changes to nesting and foraging 

habitat (e.g., shoreline erosion, beach temperature changes). 

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

Conservation Actions: 

Conservation actions conducted in 2004–2006 for recovery of the olive ridley turtle include the 

following: 

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

•		 Conducted fishery mitigation experiments including testing “stealth gear”, blue-dyed 

bait, deep day-time fishing, and new circle hook designs (barbless and whisker) in 

Hawaiian longline and shoreline fisheries, and longline fisheries in Costa Rica, Brazil, 

Guatemala, and the Azores. 

•		 Conducted turtle behavior and physiology research to understand longline gear and bait 

interactions and gear mitigation options, including contracting the development of 

computer and physical models of the biomechanics of turtle biting to study hook 

ingestion and resulting injuries. 

•		 Reduced interaction rates and mortality rates in U.S. Pacific swordfish-directed longline 

fleets by requiring large circle hooks combined with non-squid bait; requiring proper 

handling of hooked and entangled loggerheads; and requiring use of disentangling and 

de-hooking equipment such as dip nets, line cutters, and de-hookers. 

•		 Assisted 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 in Indonesia, Vietnam, and New 

Caledonia. 

•		 In collaboration with Japan, tested the efficacy of longline gear technology to reduce sea 

turtle interactions in Pacific Ocean high seas fisheries. 

•		 Educated Hawaii-based longline fishery participants about sea turtle mitigation 

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

incidental to the fishery.
 

•		 Supported surveying of trawl and longline fishing crews at Indonesian ports to estimate 

capture rates of marine turtles. 

•		 Supported a trial observer program in Indonesian longline and trawl fisheries. 

•		 Supported a project in Papua New Guinea to mitigate tuna and prawn fisheries 

interactions with marine turtles and to build the capacity of the National Fisheries 

Authority. 

•		 Identified home ranges and conducted population identification of fisheries bycatch using 

DNA analysis. 

•		 Surveyed population abundance and collected data on size, diet, and distribution of olive 

ridleys in the eastern tropical Pacific during NOAA research cruises. 

32
 
 

 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

•		 Analyzed results of abundance estimates of olive ridley turtles in the Eastern Tropical 

Pacific Ocean between 1992 and 2003 for peer reviewed publication. 

•		 Prepared a proposal to characterize the effects of inter-annual and El Niño-Southern 

Oscillation-scale temporal variability on olive ridley prey distribution and abundance in 

the Eastern Tropical Pacific. 

•		 Supported the Marshall Islands Sea Turtle-Fisheries Interaction Outreach Education 

project to build sea turtle conservation and management capacity of the Marshall Islands 

Marine Resources Authority. 

•		 Participated in the Indian Ocean Memorandum of Understanding on the Conservation 

and Management of Marine Turtles of the Indian Ocean and Southeast Asia. 

•		 Participated in the Inter-American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea 

Turtles. 

•		 Supported the development of a Turtle Research Database System in collaboration with 

six international agencies. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

Priority recovery actions needed for the olive ridley sea turtle include the following: 

•		 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. 

•		 Build capacity of foreign nations to monitor and reduce bycatch in pelagic and coastal 

fisheries. 

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 five. This represents a moderate 

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

activities. 

33
 
 

 

 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

PACIFIC SALMON RECOVERY 

Overview for 2004–2006 

Evolutionarily Significant Units Listed Under the ESA 

Twenty six “species” – distinct population segments (DPS) or evolutionarily significant units 

(ESU)4

 – of Pacific salmon and steelhead are currently protected under the ESA (see “Listing 

Actions” below). Of these 26 species, five are listed as endangered and 21 as threatened. 

Sixteen 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 4). In addition, on March 29, 2006, NMFS proposed to 

list the Puget Sound steelhead DPS as threatened. 

Table 4. ESA Listing Status of 16 Pacific Salmon ESUs and 11 West Coast Steelhead DPSs. 

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 Proposed 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 

S. Oregon/N. California Coast 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 the term 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. 

34
 
 

 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

Figures 6 and 7 show the distribution of all Pacific Chinook, sockeye, chum and coho salmon 

ESUs and steelhead DPSs. Although Figure 6 and Figure 7 include all Pacific salmon ESUs and 

steelhead DPSs, this report discusses only those that are listed under the ESA. 

Recovery Planning Efforts for Pacific Salmon and Steelhead 

Recovery planning is active for every listed species of Pacific salmon. 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. 

The agency has established a recovery planning process to include local involvement and 

capitalize on these ongoing efforts to the extent practicable.5 

To develop recovery plans meeting ESA statutory requirements as well as goals for local 

involvement, NMFS organized the 26 listed species into eight recovery areas or "domains." 

Recovery domains in the Northwest Region are the 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 8). 

Recovery planning for the Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast 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; provide scientific support to local and regional recovery planning efforts; and provide 

scientific evaluations and peer review of recovery plans. In the Northwest Region, the TRTs 

have developed either draft or final viability criteria for all listed species except SONCC coho. 

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. 

In January 2007, the Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan was completed, which includes 

management strategies for the threatened Puget Sound Chinook salmon ESU. 

5

 For more information on recovery activities, visit the NMFS salmon recovery websites at 

http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery-Planning/index.cfm and http://swr.nmfs.noaa.gov/salmon.htm. 

35
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report 

Figure 6. Distribution of Pacific Chinook Salmon ESUs and Steelhead DPSs. 

Chinook 

Steelhead 

36
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report 

Figure 7. Distribution of Pacific Sockeye, Chum, and Coho Salmon ESUs.

 Sockeye 

Chum

 Coho 

37
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

Figure 8. Recovery Domains in the Northwest Region and Southwest Region. 

38
 
 

 

 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

Listing Actions 

On June 28, 2005, NMFS issued final ESA listing determinations for 16 West Coast salmon 

ESUs (70 FR 37160). On January 5, 2006, NMFS issued final listing determinations for 10 

DPSs of West Coast steelhead (71 FR 834), and on January 19, 2006, determined that the 

Oregon Coast coho ESU, previously listed as threatened, does not warrant listing under the ESA 

(71 FR 3033). All ESUs and DPSs listed above were previously listed; the review and issuance 

of these determinations was precipitated by a 2001 court ruling involving Oregon Coast coho 

salmon (Alsea Valley Alliance v. Evans), which concluded NMFS had improperly implemented 

the provisions of the ESA by listing only part of an ESU (i.e., NMFS had included hatchery 

stocks in the ESU/DPS but had not listed them). Although this ruling applied directly only to 

Oregon Coast coho salmon, the same circumstances (i.e., hatchery stocks not listed but still 

considered part of the listed species) also applied to nearly all of NMFS’ previous listing 

determinations. Informed by the court’s ruling in Alsea, hatchery programs considered part of an 

ESU or DPS were included in the 2005 and 2006 updated listing determinations. Fish from 

approximately 140 hatchery programs are included in the listings of the Northwest Region ESUs 

and DPSs, and approximately 20 are included in the listings of the Southwest Region ESUs and 

DPSs. As part of the updated listing determinations for West Coast salmon and steelhead, 

NMFS also issued protective regulations for the threatened ESUs and DPSs that make it legal to 

take marked hatchery salmon without violating the ESA. Doing so is consistent with current 

salmon management practices and allows hatchery-based fisheries to continue while conserving 

depleted natural populations of salmon. 

In addition to these final listing decisions, on March 29, 2006, the Northwest Region proposed to 

list the Puget Sound steelhead DPS as a threatened species (71 FR 15666). Table 4 (above) 

provides a complete roster of West Coast salmon and steelhead currently listed or proposed for 

listing under the ESA. 

Critical Habitat 

NMFS is responsible for designating critical habitat for threatened and endangered salmon and 

steelhead. As a result of a challenge to its previous designations (National Association of 

Homebuilders v. Evans), in particular the economic impacts of designation, NMFS formally 

withdrew existing designations for 19 species of salmon/steelhead in September 2003. Critical 

habitat designations remained in place for four Northwest Region ESUs not subject to the 

consent decree (Snake River sockeye, Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast coho, Snake 

River spring/summer Chinook, and Snake River fall Chinook) and for three Southwest Region 

ESUs (Sacramento River winter-run Chinook, Central California Coast coho, and SONCC coho). 

On September 2, 2005, NMFS published separate final rules to designate critical habitat for 12 

ESUs and DPSs in the Northwest Region and 7 ESUs and DPSs in the Southwest Region.6 The 

specific areas designated in the Northwest Region include approximately 20,630 miles (33,201 

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 

8,935 miles (14,296 km) of riverine habitat and 470 square miles (1,212 sq km) of estuarine 

habitat within the geographic areas occupied by the listed species. 

6 See 70 FR 52630 (September 2, 2005) and 70 FR 52488 (September 2, 2005). 

39
 
 

 

 

 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

The final rules for both NMFS Regions include an analysis of the economic and other impacts of 

the designations and identify areas that were excluded from the final critical habitat designations, 

including Department of Defense sites, tribal lands, areas covered by specific Habitat 

Conservation Plans, and areas where the economic benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of 

designation. Other areas originally considered for exclusion, such as federal lands managed 

under the Northwest Forest Plan, were included in the final critical habitat designations. In the 

final rules, NMFS stated that it would continue to analyze whether these and other lands warrant 

exclusion from critical habitat designation based on a thorough evaluation of the associated land 

planning and management framework. 

Species Status for Pacific Salmon 

NMFS completed its most recent formal assessment of salmon and steelhead status in 2005 

(based on data through 2001 or 2002, depending on the species). Consistent with statutory 

obligations, NMFS will complete the next status review in 2010. At that time, recovery plans 

and criteria should be in place for all listed species, and the recovery criteria will guide 

evaluation of ESU/DPS status. 

In general, NMFS evaluates a species’ status by assessing the abundance, productivity, spatial 

structure, and genetic diversity of its component populations. NMFS also evaluates the threats 

facing each population and synthesizes that information at the species scale. 

This biennial report presents estimates of the historical abundance of each ESU/DPS, a summary 

of conclusions from the last formal status review, and information on recent trends, where 

available. Estimates of historical abundance, recent abundance, and trends should be considered 

only as general indicators and may have a significant margin of error.7 Recent abundance 

estimates are based on the most recent five years of available data. Estimates of recent trends 

(i.e., is an ESU increasing, decreasing, or remaining stable in abundance over time) are based on 

the most recent 12 years of available data. Also, the reported trends in abundance may reflect 

7

 Estimates of historical abundance are reported as ranges intended to reflect conditions before declines in status of 

salmon and steelhead began to be observed (e.g., early twentieth century conditions) and they may have a 

considerable margin of error. These estimates were developed by NMFS using available information and 

professional judgment. Note that these estimates differ from historical abundance estimates in previous biennial 

reports, which were based on sources that varied considerably among ESUs and in terms of the timeframes they 

represented. Recent abundance estimates represent a 5-year geometric mean based on 2001-2005 or 2000-2004 

ESU-level abundance estimates as compiled by NMFS. The sources of current abundance data also vary among and 

within ESUs, and the totals presented represent only rough estimates. Trends were estimated by calculating the 

median population growth rate (lambda) based on the most recent available12 years of ESU-level abundance 

estimates. 

40
 
 

 

 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

the influence of hatchery fish that spawn in the wild and thus do not necessarily indicate trends 

in the natural production upon which recovery goals are based. Thus, the trend is a useful but 

incomplete indicator of ESU status and will be placed in the context of additional indicators at 

the time of a formal status assessment. 

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, and other land uses), as well as timber harvest practices, hatchery practices,8

 natural 

variation in ocean-climate 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. 

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) “take” prohibitions (16 U.S.C. 1538(a)(1)(B)) apply to all species listed as 

endangered. ESA section 4(d) leaves it to the Secretary’s discretion whether and to what extent 

to extend the statutory 9(a) take prohibitions to species listed as threatened, and directs the 

agency to issue regulations it considers necessary and advisable for the conservation of the 

species. These 9(a) prohibitions and 4(d) regulations apply to all individuals, organizations, and 

agencies subject to U.S. jurisdiction. The 4(d) protective regulations may prohibit, with respect 

to threatened species, some or all of the acts which section 9(a) of the ESA prohibits with respect 

to endangered species. Under section 4(d), NMFS has tailored specific “limits” or exemptions 

from the take prohibitions applicable to threatened Pacific salmonids to authorize certain 

activities to proceed, provided that they are consistent with conservation and recovery needs.. 

Since 1997, NMFS has promulgated a total of 29 limits to the ESA Section 9(a) take prohibitions 

for 19 threatened salmon and steelhead ESUs (62 FR 38479, July 18, 1997; 65 FR 42422, July 

10, 2000; 65 FR 42485, July 10, 2000; 67 FR 1116, January 9, 2002). The Northwest and 

Southwest Regions have approved hundreds of programs and activities under the 4(d) rule, 

ensuring that hatchery and harvest management plans, resource management plans, road 

maintenance activities, and tribal resource management plans benefit threatened West Coast 

salmonids. Although the 4(d) protective regulations promulgated between 1997 and 2002 were 

8

 Potential negative aspects of hatchery-bred fish include competition for food and altered genetic diversity of 

natural populations. 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 populations to 

support harvest and meet tribal treaty fishing rights. 

41
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

effective at protecting threatened salmonids and efficiently authorizing certain activities, several 

of the limits described therein were redundant, outdated, located disjunctively in the Code of 

Federal Regulations, or did not apply equally to all threatened salmonids. The resulting 

complexity of the 4(d) regulations unnecessarily increased the administrative and regulatory 

burden of managing protective regulations and generated confusion regarding activities eligible 

for exemptions from the take prohibitions under 4(d). 

On June 28, 2005, as part of the final listing determinations for 16 West Coast salmon ESUs, 

NMFS amended and streamlined the previously promulgated 4(d) protective regulations for 

threatened salmon and steelhead (70 FR 37160, June 28, 2005). First, NMFS consolidated all of 

the previously promulgated 4(d) limits and applied the same set of 4(d) protective regulations to 

all threatened West Coast salmonids. Additionally, NMFS finalized an amendment whereby the 

4(d) protective regulations apply to natural and hatchery fish with an intact adipose fin only, but 

do not apply to listed hatchery fish that have had their adipose fin removed prior to release into 

the wild. This change was necessary to ensure that fisheries and hatchery programs are managed 

consistent with the conservation needs of threatened salmonids. The 2005 amendments to the 

section 4(d) regulations for threatened salmonids ensure that they can be more efficiently and 

effectively accessed and interpreted by all affected parties, and provide certainty to non-federal 

parties conducting activities beneficial to listed salmonids that they are in compliance with the 

ESA. 

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 2005 and FY 2006, the Northwest Region conducted 1,299 section 7 

consultations, and the Southwest Region conducted 706. 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 incidental 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. In FY 2005 

and FY 2006, the Northwest Region approved, implemented, or provided technical assistance on 

32 habitat conservation plans under ESA section 10 and issued one section 10(a)(1)(B) permit. 

The Southwest Region collaborated on 37 habitat conservation plans at various stages of 

development, review, or negotiation during the biennium and issued one permit during this time. 

Additionally, the Northwest Region issued 115 new and modified permits for scientific research 

and enhancement activities under section 10; the Southwest Region issued 27 such permits. 

42
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

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 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 approximately $63 million per 

year for restoration projects in Washington, Oregon, California, and Idaho. The states have 

provided over 50 percent matching funds to these federal funds. Since FY 2000, over 6,400 

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. The 2007 PCSRF Annual Report to Congress reports on the actions of the PCSRF 

from FY 2000 to November 30, 2006. The 2007 PCSRF report is currently under review, and 

will be available in late March or early April 2007. For additional information, please see the 

2006 PCSRF Report to Congress, which is available online at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/SalmonRecovery-Planning/PCSRF/Index.cfm. 

43
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

Salmon Recovery in the Northwest 

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 recovery plan. This interim plan will be combined with the plan for the 

Oregon portion of the ESU, which is under development. A draft plan for the full ESU is 

expected in mid-2007. 

Technical Recovery Team Products: 

The Willamette/Lower Columbia Technical Recovery Team has identified independent 

populations and completed population viability criteria and ESU recovery goals for this ESU. 

Species Status: 

The estimated historical abundance (circa 1900) of the Lower Columbia Chinook ESU is 

430,000 – 560,000. Based on the most recent five years of available data, the estimated mean 

total abundance (natural and hatchery-origin fish) of the ESU is approximately 48,800, and 

recent mean natural abundance is estimated to be approximately 24,400. The last formal review 

of ESU status, based on data previous to 2003, indicated that since the time of listing or first 

review, abundance and productivity of this ESU had remained unchanged. Preliminary 

information based on the most recent 12 years of available data indicates a positive short-term 

trend in total abundance (natural and hatchery–origin fish) for the ESU. 

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 operation of 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 systems. 

•		 Hatchery impacts. 

•		 Harvest impacts to fall Chinook salmon. 

Conservation Actions: 

Major accomplishments for this ESU in 2004–2006 include the following: 

•		 Hydropower operational changes and agreements for dam removal. NMFS continued 

implementation of the Cowlitz River Settlement Agreement, under Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission re-licensing, and completed the Lewis River Settlement 

44
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

Agreement and Clackamas River Hydroelectric Project Settlement Agreement. These 

agreements included reintroduction efforts into previously blocked habitat, improved 

flow releases, dam passage survival studies, plans for passage improvements, and habitat 

improvements. NMFS also began implementation of the Settlement Agreement for the 

Powerdale Hydroelectric Project, which will improve fish passage conditions in the Hood 

River and result in the removal of Powerdale Dam in 2010; and implementation of the 

Settlement Agreement for the Bull Run Hydroelectric Project, which will result in the 

removal of Marmot Dam in 2007 and restoration of unimpeded passage in the Sandy 

River. 

•		 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 2004–2006. The 

strategy is designed to conserve and restore salmon and steelhead habitat and to provide 

an anchor for federal lands’ contribution to salmon recovery. NMFS also approved the 

Forest Practices Habitat Conservation Plan, covering 9.3 million acres of private timber 

lands in Washington, and has formally recognized the conservation value of state forest 

practice rules to the recovery of listed salmonids. 

•		 Hatchery reforms. The Hatchery Scientific Review Group (HSRG) began evaluating 

hatchery programs to identify additional reforms needed to ensure that hatcheries benefit 

conservation efforts and reduce risks to the ESU. 

•		 Harvest reforms and implementation of Fisheries Management and Evaluation Plans. 

Marking of hatchery spring Chinook has permitted selective commercial and recreational 

fisheries for hatchery spring Chinook, reducing impacts to wild spring Chinook salmon 

from 65 percent to 22 percent, and has allowed identification of hatchery and wild fish at 

weirs and traps, on the spawning grounds, and during broodstock collection. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

Priority recovery actions needed for this ESU include the following: 

•		 Implementation of the interim regional recovery plan for the Washington portion of this 

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, flow 

management, and, in the Hood and Sandy basins, dam removal. 

•		 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. 

•		 Continued improvements to hatchery practices, including marking all hatchery fall 

Chinook, updating adult traps and weirs, using alternate release strategies, developing 

localized broodstocks, and implementing final HSRG recommendations. 

•		 Improved ocean 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). 

45
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

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 one. 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 one. 

46
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

Lower Columbia River Coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch) 

Date Listed: June 28, 2005 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: 

Recovery planning is underway in both Oregon and Washington portions of this ESU, with draft 

recovery plans expected in the spring of 2007. 

Technical Recovery Team Products: 

The Willamette/Lower Columbia Technical Recovery Team has identified independent 

populations and completed the population viability criteria and ESU recovery goals. 

Species Status: 

The estimated historical abundance (circa 1900) of the Lower Columbia River Coho ESU is 

850,000 to 1,100,000. Based on the most recent 5 years of available data, the estimated mean 

total abundance (natural and hatchery-origin fish) of the ESU is approximately 240,300, and 

recent mean natural abundance is estimated to be approximately 24,000. The last formal review 

of ESU status, based on data previous to 2003, indicated that since the time of listing or first 

review, abundance and productivity of this ESU had decreased. Information was not available 

for estimating the most recent 12-year trend for this ESU. 

Limiting Factors and Threats: 

Threats and impacts to the Lower Columbia River Coho ESU include the following: 

•		 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 impacts. 

•		 Harvest impacts. 

Conservation Actions: 

Major accomplishments since the 2005 listing of this ESU include the following: 

•		 Hydropower operational changes and agreements for dam removal. NMFS continued 

implementation of the Cowlitz River Settlement Agreement, under Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission relicensing, and completed the Lewis River Settlement 

Agreement and Clackamas River Hydroelectric Project Settlement Agreement. These 

agreements included reintroduction efforts into previously blocked habitat, improved 

flow releases, dam passage survival studies, plans for passage improvements, and habitat 

improvements. NMFS also began implementation of the Settlement Agreement for the 

Powerdale Hydroelectric Project, which will improve fish passage conditions in the Hood 

River and result in the removal of Powerdale Dam in 2010; and implementation of the 

Settlement Agreement for the Bull Run Hydroelectric Project, which will result in the 

removal of Marmot Dam in 2007 and restoration of unimpeded passage in the Sandy 

River. 

47
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

•		 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 2004–2006. The 

strategy is designed to conserve and restore salmon and steelhead habitat and to provide 

an anchor for federal lands’ contribution to salmon recovery. NMFS also approved the 

Forest Practices Habitat Conservation Plan, covering 9.3 million acres of private timber 

lands in Washington, and has formally recognized the conservation value of state forest 

practice rules to the recovery of listed salmonids. 

•		 Hatchery reforms. Some coho hatchery programs have been integrated with local 

natural-origin populations to increase abundance and reduce adverse impacts of 

hatcheries. Hatchery fish continue to be externally marked for fisheries to 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 Hatchery Scientific Review 

Group (HSRG) is also evaluating hatchery programs to identify additional operational 

reforms needed to ensure that hatcheries benefit conservation efforts and reduce risks to 

the ESU. 

•		 Harvest reforms. The marking of hatchery coho salmon has permitted implementation of 

selective commercial and recreational fisheries for coho salmon, reducing impacts to wild 

coho salmon from 85 percent to 18 percent. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

Priority recovery actions needed for this ESU include the following: 

•		 Implementation of the interim regional recovery plan for the Washington portion of this 

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, flow 

management, and, in the Hood and Sandy basins, dam removal. 

•		 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 

abundance and origin estimates. 

•		 Improvements at hatchery facilities to provide better broodstock collection and hatchery 

adult management so that hatchery reforms can be implemented. 

•		 Completion of ocean and in-river harvest management actions, including Fisheries 

Management and Evaluation Plans for coho salmon, to further reduce harvest impacts. 

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 one. 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 

48
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

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 one. 

49
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

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 of a proposed recovery plan for the 

Puget Sound Chinook ESU in December 2005 (70 FR 76445). The final recovery plan for this 

ESU was completed in January 2007. 

Technical Recovery Team Products: 

The Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team 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: 

The estimated historical abundance (circa 1900) of the Puget Sound Chinook ESU is 600,000 – 

800,000. Based on the most recent five years of available data, the estimated mean total 

abundance (natural and hatchery-origin fish) of the ESU is approximately 55,200, and recent 

mean natural abundance is estimated to be approximately 35,900. The last formal review of 

ESU status, based on data previous to 2003, indicated that since the time of listing or first 

review, abundance and productivity of this ESU had remained unchanged. Preliminary 

information based on the most recent 12 years of available data indicates a positive short-term 

trend in total abundance (natural and hatchery-origin) for the ESU. 

Limiting Factors and Threats: 

Limiting factors and threats to the Puget Sound Chinook 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 

have 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. 

Conservation Actions: 

Major accomplishments in 2004–2006 for this ESU include the following: 

• Completed Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan and implemented near-term priority 

habitat protection and restoration projects. In 2006, the Shared Strategy for Puget 

50
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

Sound (a coalition of tribes, governments, and stakeholders) agreed upon an investment 

and funds allocation strategy focusing on the highest priority actions within and across 

the 14 watersheds in Puget Sound. 

•		 The City of Everett, the Tulalip Tribe, the Port of Everett, and a coalition of interested 

groups continued working to protect and restore 1,500 acres of estuary. 

•		 Removed a pipeline barrier to upstream migration passage for several anadromous fish 

populations in the White River watershed – The pipeline was removed by the Tacoma 

Public Utilities District. 

•		 Improved forest management practices on 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. 

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 a 4(d) limit for the Washington State Department of Transportation Routine 

Road Maintenance activities – The limit is implemented by local governments. 

•		 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 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. 

•		 Implemented all-H integration steps in key Puget Sound watersheds, in keeping with the 

Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team’s guidance to integrate actions between 

hatchery, harvest, and habitat sectors to ensure that they work together synergistically 

and that management activities do not work at cross purposes. Local watershed harvest, 

hatchery, and habitat managers and scientists in six watersheds are conducting technical 

and policy analyses to make adjustments if needed to their recovery strategies and 

actions in accordance with those findings. 

•		 Completing a Verification and Accountability (V&A) system as part of the adaptive 

management and monitoring program. The V&A system will be user-friendly and 

accessible to policy decision makers at all levels of government, to those implementing 

actions, and to the lay public and stakeholders. It will track monitoring data and results 

over time, hold people accountable for and reward them for completing their 

commitments, and enable the public and decision makers to make adjustments in 

response to data. It is scheduled to come online by the end of 2007. 

•		 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. 

51
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

•		 Implemented hatchery management modifications – The implementation of hatchery 

reform recommendations developed independently by the Hatchery Scientific Review 

Group 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 National Environmental Policy Act and 

ESA processes. 

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. 

•		 Curtail nearshore habitat loss and restore nearshore habitat quality. 

•		 Restore natural hydrologic processes and improve flow management. 

•		 Continue to reduce the effects of hatchery and harvest management activities. 

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 one. 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 relatively 

well understood and recovery planning is currently under way. Although it may be costprohibitive 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 one. 

52
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

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. A draft 

recovery plan for this ESU is expected by March 2007. 

Technical Recovery Team Products: 

The Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team identified independent populations and 

completed the population viability criteria and ESU recovery goals. 

Species Status: 

The estimated historical abundance (circa 1900) of the Snake River Fall-Run Chinook ESU is 

400,000 – 500,000. Based on the most recent five years of available data, the estimated mean 

total abundance (natural and hatchery-origin fish) of the ESU is approximately 12,300, with 

recent mean natural abundance estimated to be approximately 4,900. The last formal review of 

ESU status, based on data previous to 2003, indicated that since the time of listing or first 

review, abundance and productivity of this ESU had improved. Preliminary information based 

on the most recent 12 years of available data indicates a positive short-term trend in total 

abundance (natural and hatchery-origin fish) for the ESU. 

Limiting Factors and Threats: 

Limiting factors and threats to the Snake River Fall-Run Chinook ESU include the following: 

•		 Degraded estuarine and nearshore habitat. 

•		 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 impacts. 

•		 Mainstem Columbia River hydropower impacts. 

Conservation Actions: 

Major accomplishments in 2004–2006 for this ESU include the following: 

•		 Continued structural and operational modification to hydropower system. 

•		 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 Fish and Wildlife Program, Pacific 

Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund (PCSRF), Natural Resources Conservation Service, and 

the NOAA Restoration Center. 

53
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

•		 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 

•		 Reduced overall harvest rates. 

•		 Conducted conservation efforts at hatcheries – The Lyons Ferry egg bank, started in the 

1970s, is an ongoing program that helps preserve diversity within the ESU. The 

population had declined to less than 100 fish in 1990, but broodstock has been building 

over time. In 2004, all facilities reached a capacity of 5 million smolts for the first time. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

Priority recovery actions needed for this ESU include the following: 

•		 Improve survival in the migration corridor. Restoring the migration corridor, including 

the estuary, to a more normative ecological function would increase salmon survival 

above the current 9.85–23.6 percent survival rate for juvenile in-river migrants. 

•		 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 rivers flows to benefit this population. 

•		 Continue to reduce mortality from harvest activities, which is currently 35 to 40 percent 

of the run. 

•		 Continue work to control predation. 

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 one. 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 one. 

54
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

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. No 

recovery plan has been completed for this ESU, but recovery planning is underway. A draft 

recovery plan for this ESU is expected by March 2007. 

Technical Recovery Team Products: 

The Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team identified independent populations and 

completed the population viability criteria and ESU recovery goals. 

Species Status: 

The estimated historical abundance (circa 1900) of the Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook 

ESU is 1.75 million to 2.25 million. Based on the most recent 5 years of available data, the 

estimated mean total abundance (natural and hatchery-origin fish) of the ESU is approximately 

89,800, and recent mean natural abundance is estimated to be approximately 18,000. The last 

formal review of ESU status, based on data previous to 2003, indicated that since the time of 

listing or first review, abundance and productivity of this ESU had improved. Preliminary 

information based on the most recent 12 years of available data indicates a positive short-term 

trend in total abundance (natural and hatchery-origin fish) for the ESU. 

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, stream flow, and 

water quality have been degraded as a result of cumulative impacts of agriculture, 

forestry, and development. 

•		 Mainstem Columbia River hydropower impacts. 

Conservation Actions: 

Major accomplishments in 2004–2006 for this ESU 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, 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 Fish and Wildlife Program, Pacific 

55
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund, 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 Idaho and the Nez Perce Tribe in 2005. 

•		 Equipped irrigation diversions with fish screens. 

•		 Reduced overall harvest rates. 

•		 Conducted conservation efforts at hatcheries. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

Priority recovery actions needed for this ESU include: 

•		 Continue to improve survival in the migration corridor. Restoring the migration corridor, 

including the estuary, to a more normative ecological function. 

•		 Continue the structural and operational modifications to hydropower dams to improve 

salmon survival in the migration corridor. 

•		 Continue to protect high-quality habitats. 

•		 Continue to conduct habitat restoration. 

•		 Continue to increase instream flows. 

•		 Further reduce mortality from harvest activities. 

•		 Continue work aimed at controlling predation. 

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 one. 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 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 one. 

56
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

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 draft 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 of the 

proposed recovery plan was released on September 29, 2006 (71 FR 57472), for a 60-day review 

period, and extended for an additional 60 days on November 28, 2006. A final ESA recovery 

plan for this ESU is expected by July 2007. 

Technical Recovery Team Products: 

The Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team identified independent populations and 

recommended population viability criteria and ESU recovery goals. 

Species Status: 

The estimated historical abundance (circa 1900) of the Upper Columbia Spring-Run Chinook 

ESU is 25,000 to 35,000. Based on the most recent 5 years of available data, the estimated mean 

total abundance (natural and hatchery-origin fish) of the ESU is approximately 3,600, and recent 

mean natural abundance is estimated to be approximately 1,800. The last formal review of ESU 

status, based on data previous to 2003, indicated that since the time of listing or first review, 

abundance and productivity of this ESU had improved. Preliminary information based on the 

most recent 12 years of available data indicates a positive short-term trend in total abundance 

(natural and hatchery-origin fish) for the ESU. 

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 impacts. 

Conservation Actions: 

Major accomplishments in 2004–2006 for this ESU include the following: 

•		 Accomplished hydropower operational changes. 

•		 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. 

57
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

•		 Equipped more than two dozen irrigation diversion withdrawals with screens, leading to 

greater productivity and abundance. 

•		 Conducted complex negotiations each season through U.S. v. Oregon to direct Columbia 

River harvest rates and fishery structure for the protection of listed Chinook salmon. 

•		 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 

three Habitat Conservation Plans with local public utility districts. In particular, the 

Bureau of Reclamation has assisted in implementing several significant passage 

improvement projects in the Methow and Wenatchee basins. 

•		 Hatchery facility modifications and operational changes were made to benefit salmon 

conservation by lowering risk to natural populations. 

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 one. 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 one. 

58
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

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 Technical Recovery Team has identified independent 

populations and completed the population viability criteria and ESU recovery goals for this ESU. 

Recovery planning is underway, and a draft recovery plan for the ESU is expected in the fall of 

2007. 

Species Status: 

The estimated historical abundance (circa 1900) of the Upper Willamette River Chinook ESU is 

260,000 – 340,000. Based on the most recent five years of available data, the estimated mean 

total abundance (natural and hatchery-origin fish) of the ESU is approximately 85,300, and 

recent mean natural abundance is estimated to be approximately 17,100. The last formal review 

of ESU status, based on data previous to 2003, indicated that since the time of listing or first 

review, abundance and productivity of this ESU had remained unchanged. Preliminary 

information based on the most recent 12 years of available data indicates a positive short-term 

trend in total abundance (natural and hatchery-origin fish) for the ESU. 

Limiting Factors and Threats: 

Limiting factors and threats to the Upper Willamette River Chinook ESU include the following: 

•		 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. 

•		 Reduced access to spawning and rearing habitat because of tributary dams. 

•		 Hatchery impacts. 

Conservation Actions: 

Major accomplishments in 2004–2006 for this ESU include the following: 

•		 Improved tributary and mainstem flows – The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has 

modified releases from its 13 multipurpose dams and reservoirs to benefit salmon. The 

relicensing settlement agreement for the Clackamas Hydroelectric Project, completed in 

2006, also included provisions for improved tributary flows. 

•		 Improved fish passage at tributary and mainstem dams – As a result of Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission re-licensing settlements, new licenses, and Clean Water Act 

section 404 permits, new or improved upstream and downstream fish passage facilities 

have been constructed at Willamette Falls, Albany/Lebanon Dam, and Upper Bennett 

Dam, and are underway in the Clackamas Basin. 

•		 Habitat restoration projects – Hundreds of projects during 2004–2006 have improved 

riparian areas, fish passage at culvert barriers, and stream and floodplain function. 

59
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

•		 Improved forest management practices on federal lands – The Northwest Forest Plan 

Aquatic Conservation Strategy continued in 2004-2006. 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 have reduced impacts to wild fish by more than 75 

percent while still allowing recreational and commercial fisheries. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

Priority recovery actions needed for this ESU include the following: 

•		 ESA section 7 consultation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on operation of 13 

multipurpose dams in the Willamette Basin. Issues to be addressed include fish passage 

(the dams block access to most historical spawning habitat for this ESU), retrofitting of 

dams to provide more normative temperature regimes, and flow management to ensure 

safe migration, rearing, spawning, and incubation. 

•		 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 are particularly important 

in lowland floodplain stream reaches where channel complexity and floodplain 

connectivity are severely degraded. 

•		 Reduced point and non-point sources of thermal and toxic pollution and continued clean 

up efforts for contaminated stream reaches. 

•		 Establishment of minimum instream flows in tributaries with water withdrawals that limit 

water availability and therefore affect salmon migration and reproduction. 

•		 Continued improvements in hatchery management, especially by improving hatchery 

collection facilities that currently injure, delay, and kill listed fish. Consider using 

hatchery fish to reestablish naturally self-sustaining Chinook populations above federal 

dams. 

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 one. 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 

60
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

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 one. 

61
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

Columbia River Chum ESU (Oncorhynchus keta) 

Date Listed: March 25, 1999; reaffirmed June 28, 2005 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: 

The Willamette/Lower Columbia Technical Recovery Team identified independent populations 

and completed population viability criteria and ESU recovery goals for this ESU. 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 recovery plan. This interim plan will be combined with the plan for the Oregon portion 

of the ESU, which is in process. A draft plan for the full ESU is expected in mid-2007. 

Species Status: 

The estimated historical abundance (circa 1900) of the Columbia River Chum ESU is 1.2 million 

to 1.6 million. Based on the most recent five years of available data, the estimated mean total 

abundance (natural and hatchery-origin fish) of the ESU is approximately 8,500, and recent 

mean natural abundance is estimated to be approximately 8,500. The last formal review of ESU 

status, based on data previous to 2003, indicated that since the time of listing or first review, 

abundance and productivity of this ESU had improved. Preliminary information based on the 

most recent 12 years of available data indicates a positive short-term trend in total abundance 

(natural and hatchery-origin fish) for the ESU. 

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 operation of 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. 

Conservation Actions: 

Major accomplishments for this ESU in 2004–2006 include the following: 

•		 Maintained mainstem Columbia River hydropower operational changes established in 

2000 – Federal hydrosystem flow operations continued to be managed to optimize 

mainstem Columbia River chum habitat through the fall and winter spawning and 

incubation periods, while conserving water to support spring and summer juvenile 

migrants from other ESUs. 

•		 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. 

62
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

•		 Improved forest management practices on federal lands and some state and private 

lands – The Northwest Forest Plan Aquatic Conservation Strategy continued in 2004– 

2006. The strategy is designed to conserve and restore salmon and steelhead habitat and 

to provide an anchor for federal lands’ contribution to salmon recovery. NMFS also 

approved the Forest Practices Habitat Conservation Plan, covering 9.3 million acres of 

private timber lands in Washington and has formally recognized the conservation value 

of state forest practice rules to the recovery of listed salmonids. 

•		 Continued “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. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

Priority recovery actions needed for this ESU include: 

•		 Implement interim regional recovery plan for the Washington portion of this ESU. 

•		 Restoration and protection of natural channel processes at additional tributary sites, 

which includes reconnecting lower tributary mainstems with side channels and flood 

plains. 

•		 Monitoring of locations of historical production and restoration of populations in lower 

Columbia River tributaries where there is currently no known spawning activity. 

•		 Restoration projects to increase shallow water rearing habitat in the lower Columbia 

River, and monitoring and evaluation to determine needs for additional restoration. 

•		 Land and water use practices that avoid continued degradation and loss of chum
 

spawning and rearing 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 one. 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 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 one. 

63
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

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 of the proposed recovery plan for the Hood Canal Summer 

Chum ESU in the Federal Register in August 2006 (71 FR 47180). NMFS completed the Final 

Supplement to the Hood Canal Summer Chum Recovery Plan in December 2006. The final ESA 

recovery plan will publish in the Federal Register in early 2007. 

Technical Recovery Team Products: 

The Puget Sound TRT identified independent populations of Hood Canal Summer Chum and 

established draft population and ESU viability criteria in May 2006. 

Species Status: 

The estimated historical abundance (circa 1900) of the Hood Canal Summer-Run Chum ESU is 

60,000 to 80,000. Based on the most recent 5 years of available data, the estimated mean total 

abundance (natural and hatchery-origin fish) of the ESU is approximately 30,600, and recent 

mean natural abundance is estimated to be approximately 19,900. The last formal review of 

ESU status, based on data previous to 2003, indicated that since the time of listing or first 

review, abundance and productivity of this ESU had improved. Preliminary information based 

on the most recent 12 years of available data indicates a positive short-term trend in total 

abundance (natural and hatchery-origin fish) for the ESU. 

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 

have 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. 

64
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

Conservation Actions: 

Major accomplishments in 2004–2006 for this ESU include the following: 

•		 Reduced impacts from harvest activities. 

•		 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 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. 

•		 Implemented 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. 

•		 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 a 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 a draft 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 one. 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 the implementation of recovery actions 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 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 

65
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

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 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 one. 

66
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

Ozette Lake Sockeye ESU (Oncorhynchus nerka) 

Date Listed: March 25, 1999; reaffirmed June 28, 2005 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: 

No recovery plan has been completed, but recovery planning is under way. 

•		 The Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team has identified independent populations and 

drafted population viability criteria and ESU recovery goals. 

•		 Recovery planning has been initiated for this ESU. 

•		 A draft recovery plan for this ESU is expected by early 2007. 

Species Status: 

The estimated historical abundance (circa 1900) of the Ozette Lake Sockeye ESU is 15,000 – 

20,000. Based on the most recent five years of available data, the estimated mean total 

abundance (natural and hatchery-origin fish) of the ESU is approximately 4,200, and recent 

mean natural abundance is estimated to be approximately 2,100. The last formal review of ESU 

status, based on data previous to 2003, indicated that since the time of listing or first review, the 

status of abundance and productivity of this ESU was uncertain. However, preliminary 

information based on the most recent 12 years of available data indicates a positive short-term 

trend in total abundance (natural and hatchery-origin fish) for the ESU. 

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, and stream substrate have been 

degraded as a result of cumulative impacts of agriculture, forestry, and development. 

•		 Predation. 

Conservation Actions: 

Major accomplishments in 2004–2006 for this ESU include the following: 

•		 Conducted monthly multi-stakeholder Steering Committee meetings to develop the draft 

Lake Ozette sockeye recovery plan. 

•		 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. 

•		 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. 

•		 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. 

67
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

Conservation and recovery actions needed for this ESU include the following: 

•		 Implement the recovery plan, and develop implementation and research/monitoring 

plans. 

•		 Restore natural sediment routing processes. 

•		 Restore large woody debris recruitment and riparian habitat. 

•		 Restore degraded tributary and river habitat structure. 

•		 Control pinniped and mammal predation. 

•		 Restore natural river and lake hydrologic processes. 

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 one. 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 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 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 one. 

68
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

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 under way. 

•		 Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team identified independent populations and 

completed the population viability criteria and ESU recovery goals. 

•		 A draft recovery plan for this ESU is expected by early 2007. 

Species Status: 

The estimated historical abundance (circa 1900) of the Snake River Sockeye ESU is 40,000 to 

57,000. Based on the most recent 5 years of available data, the estimated mean abundance (of 

hatchery-origin fish) in this ESU is approximately 40, and there are no natural-origin fish. 

Limiting Factors and Threats: 

Limiting factors and threats to the Snake River Sockeye ESU are from Mainstem Columbia 

River Hydropower impacts and predation. 

Conservation Actions: 

Major accomplishments in 2002–2004 for this ESU 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, working with the Environmental Protection Agency. 

•		 Conducted local habitat restoration and restoration of stream flows. This work includes 

efforts by the Northwest Power Planning Council Fish and Wildlife Program, Pacific 

Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund, Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the NOAA 

Restoration Center. 

•		 Equipped irrigation diversions with fish screens. 

•		 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 expected by Idaho and the Nez Perce Tribe in 2005. 

•		 Conducted conservation efforts at hatcheries. The captive broodstock program produces 

200,000 embryos annually. 

69
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

Priority recovery actions needed for this ESU include the following: 

•		 Improve survival in the migration corridor. 

•		 Continue the structural and operational modifications to hydropower dams to improve 

salmon survival in the migration corridor. 

•		 Continue to protect high-quality habitats. 

•		 Continue to 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 three. 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. 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 costprohibitive 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 three. 

70
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

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: 

The Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team has identified independent populations and 

completed population viability criteria and recovery goals for this DPS. 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 (71 FR 13094). This interim plan will be combined with the plan for the Oregon portion of 

the DPS, which is in process. A draft plan for the full DPS is expected in mid-2007. 

Species Status: 

The estimated historical abundance (circa 1900) of the Lower Columbia River Steelhead DPS is 

220,000 to 280,000. Based on the most recent five years of available data, the estimated mean 

total abundance (natural and hatchery-origin fish) of the DPS is approximately 8,600, and recent 

mean natural abundance is estimated to be approximately 6,000. The last formal review of DPS 

status, based on data previous to 2003, indicated that since the time of listing or first review, 

abundance and productivity of this DPS had improved. Preliminary information based on the 

most recent 12 years of available data indicates a positive short-term trend in total abundance 

(natural and hatchery-origin fish) for the DPS. 

Limiting Factors and Threats: 

Threats and impacts to the Lower Columbia River steelhead DPS include the following: 

•		 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 

systems and lowland development. 

•		 Avian and marine mammal predation in the lower mainstem Columbia River and estuary. 

Conservation Actions: 

Major accomplishments for this DPS in 2004–2006 include the following: 

•		 Hydropower operational changes and agreements for dam removal – NMFS continued 

implementation of the Cowlitz River Settlement Agreement, under Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission re-licensing, and completed the Lewis River Settlement 

Agreement and Clackamas River Hydroelectric Project Settlement Agreement. These 

agreements included reintroduction efforts into previously blocked habitat, improved 

flow releases, dam passage survival studies, plans for passage improvements, and habitat 

improvements. NMFS also began implementation of the Settlement Agreement for the 

Powerdale Hydroelectric Project, which will improve fish passage conditions in the Hood 

River and result in the removal of Powerdale Dam in 2010; and implementation of the 

Settlement Agreement for the Bull Run Hydroelectric Project, which will result in the 

71
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

removal of Marmot Dam in 2007 and restoration of unimpeded passage in the Sandy 

River. 

•		 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 2004–2006. 

The strategy is designed to conserve and restore salmon and steelhead habitat and to 

provide an anchor for federal lands’ contribution to salmon recovery. NMFS also 

approved the Forest Practices Habitat Conservation Plan, covering 9.3 million acres of 

private timber lands in Washington and has formally recognized the conservation value 

of state forest practice rules to the recovery of listed salmonids. 

•		 Hatchery reforms – The Hatchery Scientific Review Group (HSRG) began evaluating 

hatchery programs to identify additional reforms needed to ensure that hatcheries benefit 

conservation efforts and reduce risks to the ESU. 

•		 Improved management of in-river fisheries through the implementation of Fisheries 

Management and Evaluation Plans designed to minimize impacts from fisheries on wild 

steelhead – Recent improvements include reductions in impacts to juvenile steelhead 

from resident trout fisheries; harvest impacts on wild steelhead have been reduced from a 

historical high of 75 percent to an overall impact of 8.5 percent. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

Priority recovery actions needed for this DPS include the following: 

•		 Implementation of the interim regional recovery plan for the Washington portion of this 

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, flow 

management, and, in the Hood and Sandy basins, dam removal. 

•		 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 and management 

of hatchery programs releasing non-DPS steelhead to support selective fisheries, and the 

continued reintroduction of steelhead into historical habitat using appropriate hatchery 

stocks. 

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 one. 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 

72
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

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 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 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 one. 

73
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

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 draft ESA recovery plan has been developed with a final recovery plan anticipated by July 

2007. The draft ESA recovery plan summarizes draft locally developed (management unit) 

recovery plans for the Columbia Gorge and Oregon management units and proposed locally 

developed (management unit) recovery plans for the Lower Snake and Yakima management 

units. Notices of Availability for the draft interim regional recovery plans for the Yakima 

subbasin and the Lower Snake management unit were published in the Federal Register in 2006 

(71 FR 27052 and 71 FR 13014, respectively). 

Technical Recovery Team Products: 

The Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team identified independent populations and 

recommended population viability criteria and DPS recovery goals. 

Species Status: 

The estimated historical abundance (circa 1900) of the Middle Columbia River Steelhead DPS is 

90,000 to 115,000. Based on the most recent 5 years of available data, the estimated mean total 

abundance (natural and hatchery-origin fish) of the DPS is approximately 29,100, and recent 

mean natural abundance is estimated to be approximately 20,400. The last formal review of DPS 

status, based on data previous to 2003, indicated that since the time of listing or first review, 

abundance and productivity of this DPS had improved. Preliminary information based on the 

most recent 12 years of available data indicates a positive short-term trend in total abundance 

(natural and hatchery-origin fish) for the DPS. 

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. 

•		 Hatchery impacts. 

•		 Harvest impacts. 

•		 Mainstem Columbia River Hydropower-related adverse effects. 

Conservation Actions: 

Major accomplishments in 2004–2006 for this DPS include the following: 

•		 Accomplished hydropower operational changes. 

•		 Conducted local habitat restoration projects, including reconnecting streams and side 

channels (e.g., Wilson Creek, Yakima River and Castile Falls, and Klickitat 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 

74
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

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). 

•		 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. Used Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program and Bureau of 

Reclamation funds to retire a long-standing large (28 cubic feet per second) diversion on 

a major Yakima Basin tributary, reestablishing access to more than 20 miles of 

historically productive steelhead habitat. 

•		 Continued to operate the Warm Springs National fish Hatchery weir to remove hatchery 

steelhead creating natural-origin steelhead refuge in upper Warms Springs River. 

•		 Reached agreement on providing passage above the Round Butte Complex dams on the 

Deschutes River and currently developing plan to reintroduce anadromous salmon and 

steelhead into historical habitat above the dams. 

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 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. 

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 one. 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 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 DPS. 

Finally, as a complex variety of activities and management practices continue to impact the 

75
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

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 one. 

76
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

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 recovery plan for this DPS is expected by March 2007. 

Technical Recovery Team Products: 

The Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team identified independent populations and 

completed the population viability criteria and DPS recovery goals. 

Species Status: 

The estimated historical abundance (circa 1900) of the Snake River Basin Steelhead DPS is 

275,000 to 375,000. Based on the most recent 5 years of available data, the estimated mean total 

abundance (natural and hatchery-origin fish) of the DPS is approximately 189,300, and recent 

mean natural abundance is estimated to be approximately 28,400. The last formal review of DPS 

status, based on data previous to 2003, indicated that since the time of listing or first review, 

abundance and productivity of this DPS had remained unchanged. Preliminary information 

based on the most recent 12 years of available data indicates a positive short-term trend in total 

abundance (natural and hatchery-origin fish) for the DPS. 

Limiting Factors and Threats: 

Limiting factors and threats to the Snake River basin Steelhead DPS include the following: 

•		 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. 

•		 Reduced access to spawning and rearing habitat. 

•		 Predation. 

Conservation Actions: 

Major accomplishments in 2004–2006 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, working with the Environmental 

Protection Agency. 

•		 Conducted local habitat restoration and restoration of stream flows. This includes efforts 

by the Northwest Power Planning Council Fish and Wildlife Program, Pacific Coastal 

Salmon Recovery Fund, Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the NOAA 

Restoration Center, who have funded numerous projects to improve habitat conditions. 

•		 Equipped hundreds of irrigation diversions with fish screens. 

•		 Reduced overall harvest rates. 

77
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

•		 Conducted conservation efforts at hatcheries. 

•		 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 Idaho and the Nez Perce Tribe in 2005. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

Priority recovery actions needed for this DPS include the following: 

•		 Continue to improve survival in the migration corridor by restoring the migration 

corridor, including the estuary, to a more normative ecological function. 

•		 Continue structural and operational modifications to hydropower dams to improve 

survival in the migration corridor. 

•		 Continue to protect high-quality habitats. 

•		 Continue to conduct habitat restoration. 

•		 Continue to increase instream flows. 

•		 Further reduce mortality from harvest activities. 

•		 Continue to reduce Predation. 

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 one. 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 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 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 one. 

78
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

Upper Columbia River Steelhead DPS (Oncorhynchus mykiss) 

Date Listed: Listed as endangered on August 18, 1997, and upgraded and reclassified from 

endangered ESU to threatened DPS on January 5, 2006. 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: 

A draft 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 of a proposed recovery plan on September 29, 2006 (71 FR 57472), for a 60-day 

review period, and extended for an additional 60 days on November 28, 2006. A final ESA 

recovery plan for this DPS is expected by July 2007. 

Technical Recovery Team Products: 

The Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team identified independent populations and 

recommended the population viability criteria and DPS recovery goals. 

Species Status: 

The estimated historical abundance (circa 1900) of the Upper Columbia River Steelhead DPS is 

17,000 to 22,000. Based on the most recent 5 years of available data, the estimated mean total 

abundance (natural and hatchery-origin fish) of the DPS is approximately 15,300, and recent 

mean natural abundance is estimated to be approximately 3,100. The last formal review of DPS 

status, based on data previous to 2003, indicated that since the time of listing or first review, 

abundance and productivity of this DPS had improved. Preliminary information based on the 

most recent 12 years of available data indicates a positive short-term trend in total abundance 

(natural and hatchery-origin fish) for the DPS. 

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 impacts. 

•		 Harvest impacts. 

Conservation Actions: 

Major accomplishments in 2004–2006 for this DPS include the following: 

•		 Accomplished hydropower operational changes. 

•		 Worked to improve stream flows through water conservation, leases, and purchases in 

over-appropriated 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. 

79
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

•		 Equipped more than 2 dozen irrigation diversion withdrawals with screens, leading to 

greater productivity and abundance. 

•		 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 Natural Resource Conservation Service 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 Habitat Conservation Plans with local public 

utility districts. In particular, the Bureau of Reclamation has assisted in implementing 

several significant passage improvement projects in the Methow and Wenatchee basins. 

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. 

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 one. 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 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 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 one. 

80
 
 

 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

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: 

Recovery planning is underway, and a draft recovery plan for the DPS is expected in the fall of 

2007. 

Technical Recovery Team Products: 

The Willamette/Lower Columbia Technical Recovery Team has identified independent 

populations and completed the population viability criteria and DPS recovery goals for this DPS. 

Species Status: 

The estimated historical abundance (circa 1900) of the Upper Willamette River Steelhead DPS is 

175,000 to 225,000. Based on the most recent 5 years of available data, the estimated mean total 

abundance (natural and hatchery-origin fish) of the DPS is approximately 10,400, and recent 

mean natural abundance is estimated to be approximately 7,800. The last formal review of DPS 

status, based on data previous to 2003, indicated that since the time of listing or first review, 

abundance and productivity of this DPS had improved. Preliminary information based on the 

most recent 12 years of available data indicates a positive short-term trend in total abundance 

(natural and hatchery-origin fish) for the DPS. 

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 tributary dams 

•		 Hatchery impacts. 

Conservation Actions: 

Major accomplishments in 2004–2006 for this DPS include the following: 

•		 Improved tributary and mainstem flows. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has modified 

releases from its 13 multipurpose dams and reservoirs to benefit steelhead. 

•		 Improved fish passage at tributary and mainstem dams. As a result of Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission re-licensing settlements, new licenses, and Clean Water Act 

section 404 permits, new or improved upstream and downstream fish passage facilities 

have been constructed at Willamette Falls hydro, Albany/Lebanon Dam, and Bennett 

Dam. 

•		 Habitat restoration projects. Hundreds of projects during 2004–2006 have improved 

riparian areas, fish passage at barriers, and stream function. 

81
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

•		 Improved forest management practices on federal lands. The Northwest Forest Plan 

Aquatic Conservation Strategy continued during the biennium and is designed to 

conserve and restore salmon and steelhead habitat and provide an anchor for federal 

lands’ contribution to salmon recovery. 

•		 Hatchery reforms. Hatchery programs have been modified to reduce the effects of nonnative summer steelhead hatchery fish on native, naturally produced winter steelhead 

populations. 

•		 Harvest reforms. Catch-and-release fisheries have substantially reduced harvest impacts 

to steelhead. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

Priority recovery actions needed for this DPS include the following: 

•		 ESA section 7 consultation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on operation of 13 

multipurpose dams in the Willamette Basin. Issues to be addressed include fish passage 

(the dams block access to much historical spawning habitat for this DPS), retrofitting of 

dams to provide more normative temperature regimes, and flow management to ensure 

safe migration, rearing, spawning, and incubation. 

•		 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 are particularly important 

in lowland floodplain stream reaches where channel complexity and floodplain 

connectivity are severely degraded. 

•		 Reduced point and non-point sources of thermal and toxic pollution and continued clean 

up efforts for contaminated stream reaches. 

•		 Continued improvement in management of non-native summer steelhead hatchery fish, 

especially by improving hatchery collection facilities that currently injure, delay, and kill 

ESA-listed fish. 

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 one. 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 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 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 one. 

82
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

Salmon Recovery Overlapping the Northwest and Southwest 

Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast Coho ESU 

(Oncorhynchus kisutch) 

Date Listed: May 6, 1997; reaffirmed June 28, 2005 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: 

Recovery planning is underway. In 2002, NMFS began Phase I recovery planning for the 

Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast (SONCC) through a Technical Recovery Team 

(TRT). The first phase of the NMFS Southwest Region’s recovery planning efforts has been 

carried out by the SONCC TRT developing technical information for all coho salmon 

populations (e.g., population structure, population viability criteria, ESU viability criteria, 

research needs, and monitoring requirements). In June 2006, the SONCC TRT released its 

historic population structure report for the SONCC coho salmon ESU. 

The SONCC TRT has preliminarily identified 62 historical populations of Southern 

Oregon/Northern California Coast coho salmon, of which 27 are considered functionally 

independent and potentially independent, with all other coho populations dependent on others 

within the ESU. Additionally, the SONCC TRT released a draft of its SONCC coho population 

viability criteria report for public review and comment in January 2007. This technical 

information will serve as the scientific foundation for the SONCC coho salmon recovery plan. 

The NMFS Southwest Region has started the final phase of its ongoing effort to prepare recovery 

plans for all salmon and steelhead populations listed under the ESA in California, including the 

SONCC coho salmon ESU. The final phase is drafting the recovery plan. NMFS’ Southwest 

Region is currently working with various agencies from both Oregon and California to compile 

necessary data for conducting a detailed assessment across the ESU to identify limiting factors 

and threats for each population within the SONCC Coho salmon ESU. This assessment, coupled 

with the species’ historic population structure and viability requirements described above will 

provide the basis for identifying specific measures, and their costs, that must be considered to 

recover SONCC coho salmon to the point that listing under the ESA is no longer warranted. 

Associated with this is the necessary monitoring to ensure that the goals and objectives of the 

plan are being accomplished. A draft recovery plan is expected to be released in December 2007 

with a final plan in March 2008. 

Species Status: 

The SONCC coho ESU includes all naturally spawned populations of coho salmon in coastal 

streams between Cape Blanco, Oregon, and Punta Gorda, California. Three artificial 

propagation programs are considered to be part of the ESU: the Cole Rivers Hatchery (Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife), Trinity River Hatchery, and Iron Gate Hatchery coho 

programs. NMFS has determined that these artificially propagated stocks are no more than 

moderately diverged from the local natural populations. 

83
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

The estimated historical abundance of the SONCC coho ESU is 150,000. The recent mean 

abundance is 5,170, which is the highest such abundance since 1980. However, this estimated 

abundance is derived from the only reliable time series of adult abundance for the naturally 

spawning component of the SONCC coho ESU – the Rogue River population in southern 

Oregon. The California portion of the ESU is characterized by a paucity of data, with only a few 

available spawner indices and presence-absence surveys. Less reliable indices of spawner 

abundance in several California populations exist, and suggest flat or declining trends. 

Relatively low levels of observed presence in historically occupied coho streams (32–56 percent 

from 1986 to 2000) indicate continued low abundance in the California portion of this ESU. 

Currently, indications of weak 2006 coho salmon returns in several California populations are 

expected. Only three rivers have hatchery populations and natural populations are depressed 

throughout the range of the ESU. Although extant populations reside in all major river basins 

within the ESU, there is concern about the loss of local populations in the Trinity, Klamath, and 

Rogue River systems. The high hatchery production in these systems may mask trends in ESU 

population structure and pose risks to ESU diversity. 

The overall ESU trend since the time of listing or first review shows that productivity has 

remained unchanged, and population abundance has remained unchanged. 

Threats and Impacts: 

The SONCC coho salmon ESU declined in abundance over the past several decades as a result of 

loss of, and damage or change to the natural environment. Water diversions for agriculture, 

flood control, domestic, and hydropower purposes have greatly reduced or eliminated 

historically accessible habitat and degraded the remaining habitat. Forestry, agriculture, mining, 

and urbanization have degraded, simplified, and fragmented habitat. The destruction or 

modification of estuarine areas has resulted in the loss of important rearing and migration 

habitats. Oregon wetlands are estimated to have diminished by one-third, and California 

wetlands by over 80 percent. Habitat fragmentation and loss of habitat complexity have also 

contributed to the decline of this ESU. Sedimentation from historic and current extensive and 

intensive land use activities are recognized as a primary cause of habitat degradation throughout 

the range of this ESU. Most of the primary coho producing rivers in the range of the ESU were 

designated as impaired (primarily due to sediment and water temperature) under the Clean Water 

Act by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in the 1990s. 

The following sources of limiting factors are prevalent throughout the range of this ESU and 

affect most populations. These limiting factors include: 

•		 Agricultural operations: 

∗		 Artificial barriers. 

∗		 Conditions severing surface/subsurface hydrologic connection of stream channel 

and wetlands. 

∗		 Dams. 

∗		 Erosion-control structures. 

∗		 Flood-control structures. 

∗		 Pits from gravel mining. 

∗		 Road crossings (e.g., bridges, culverts, and low-water fords). 

•		 Forestry operations. 

84
 
 

 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

•		 Gravel extraction. 

•		 Illegal harvest. 

•		 Streambed alteration. 

•		 Substandard fish screens on diversions. 

•		 Suction (hydraulic) dredging. 

•		 Unscreened water diversions. 

•		 Urbanization. 

•		 Water demand exceeding availability. 

•		 Water pollution. 

The following limiting factors, and their level of threat to the SONCC Coho ESU, were 

identified in the 2006 Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund Report to Congress: 

Degraded Habitat-Estuarine and near shore Marine: Moderate Threat 

Degraded Habitat-Floodplain Connectivity and Function: High Threat 

Degraded Habitat-Channel Structure and Complexity: Moderate to High Threat 

Degraded Habitat-Riparian Areas and Large Woody Debris Recruitment: High Threat 

Degraded Habitat-Stream Substrate: Moderate Threat 

Degraded Habitat-Stream Flow: Moderate to High Threat 

Degraded Habitat-Water Quality: Moderate Threat 

Degraded Habitat-Fish Passage: Moderate Threat 

Hatchery-related Adverse Effects: Very Low Threat 

Harvest-related Adverse Effects: Low Threat 

Predation/Competition/ Disease: Moderate to High Threat 

Conservation Actions: 

Numerous conservation actions were conducted from 2004–2006 for Southern Oregon/Northern 

California ESU recovery and are detailed below. 

Agricultural Land Management Practices 

•		 Collaborated proactively with counties on General Plan Updates, Grading Ordinances, 

and Riparian Ordinances. 

•		 Completed ESA section 7 Biological Opinions for all Land and Resource Management 

Plans (LRMPs) and associated activities (under the LRMPs) for all listed species found 

within each of the individual National Forests or Bureau of Land Management Resource 

Areas. 

•		 Contributed to the State of California Coho Recovery Plan – The State of California 

listed two California coho populations (from San Francisco Bay to the Oregon border) 

under the California Endangered Species Act in 2003. 

ESA Section 7 Consultations 

•		 Conducted over 200 ESA section 7 consultations over the past 2 years with federal action 

agencies that fund or carry out projects such as irrigation and water diversion, timber 

sales, watershed restoration, fish passage at barriers, gravel mining, grazing, and 

transportation projects throughout southern Oregon and northern California. 

85
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

•		 Worked closely in 2005–2006 with the Yurok Tribe in its development of an ESA section 

4(d) rule covering their Tribal Resource Management Plan for Chinook and coho salmon. 

Gravel Mining 

•		 Applied the NMFS Southwest Region (SWR) Gravel Mining Guidelines entitled 

“Sediment Removal from Freshwater Salmonid Habitat: Guidelines to NMFS Staff for 

the Evaluation of Sediment Removal Actions from California Streams.” 

•		 Continued collaboration with Humboldt, Del Norte, and Mendocino Counties on the 

Humboldt, Del Norte and Mendocino Gravel Plans. 

•		 In addition to applying the SWR Gravel Mining Guidelines, applied the interagency 

developed guidelines entitled “Sediment Removal from Active Stream Channels in 

Oregon: Considerations for Federal Agencies for the Evaluation of Sediment Removal 

Actions from Oregon Streams” and the 2005 NMFS National Gravel Extraction 

Guidance in streams of southern Oregon. 

Municipal and Agricultural Water Diversions 

•		 Developed “Guidelines for Maintaining Instream Flows to Protect Fisheries below Water 

Diversions,” which are used by NMFS and the California State Water Resources Control 

Board for flow standards when issuing water rights permits. 

•		 Applied the Water Drafting Specifications, Guidelines for Salmonid Passage at Stream 

Crossings, Fish Screening Criteria for Anadromous Salmonids, and the Addendum to 

Fish Screening Criteria for Pumped Water Intakes. 

•		 Continued working with the Bureau of Reclamation on the Klamath Project 10-Year 

Biological Opinion to ensure its Klamath Project operations and programs are consistent 

with the reasonable and prudent alternative. 

•		 Continued working with the Bureau of Reclamation on the Rogue River Basin Project 

Biological Opinion to develop a reasonable and prudent alternative that stabilizes flows 

in the Bear Creek watershed, formalizes a ramping requirement for the Emigrant Dam 

operations, and reemphasizes fish passage improvement activities. 

•		 Continued working with the Bureau of Reclamation on the Savage Rapids Dam removal 

and irrigation pump installation work by completing a Biological Opinion and 

participating in the interagency implementation team. Also continued work with the 

Grants Pass Irrigation District by assisting the District in applying for an extension on 

their incidental take permit for the interim operations of Savage Rapids Dam until the 

irrigation pumps are constructed. 

•		 Continued working 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. 

Summer Dams 

•		 Developed a database of summer dams and commenced proactive efforts to engage with 

landowners to minimize the effects of such dams. 

•		 Implemented staff guidelines entitled “The Effects of Summer Dams on Salmon and 

Steelhead in California Coastal Watersheds & Recommendations for Mitigating Their 

Impacts.” 

86
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

Timberland Management and Forest Conversions 

•		 Engaged in on-site reviews of timber operations, and implemented the “Salmonid 

Guidelines for Forest Practices” when evaluating non-federal timber harvest operations. 

•		 Implemented the Stewardship Non-Industrial Timber Management Plan program in 

negotiation with the State Board of Forestry to encourage participation by and minimize 

regulatory burdens on small forest landowners operating under a stewardship philosophy. 

•		 Worked on the Pacific Lumber Company Habitat Conservation Plan (PALCO HCP) – 

The PALCO HCP covers approximately 210,000 acres of industrial timberlands in 

Northern California and includes activities related to timber management, forest road 

development and maintenance, and commercial rock quarrying. 

•		 Green Diamond Resource Company submitted a final Habitat Conservation Plan and EIS 

in October 2006, for much of its industrial timber lands. Final issuance of the permit is 

anticipated in the spring of 2007. 

•		 Continued to work with the USDA Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management on 

federal land management issues regarding fire fuels treatments throughout the Rogue 

Basin. 

Urbanization/Channelization 

•		 Conducted ESA section 7 consultations with the Army Corps of Engineers to minimize 

the effects of flood control projects, levee setbacks, and floodplain management on the 

ESU. 

•		 Collaborated with Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District on the development of a 

habitat conservation plan to significantly reduce direct mortality of salmon at the water 

diversion, better coordinate withdrawals to improve instream-flows on the Mad River, 

and improve operations. 

Restoration 

•		 Continued to provide annual grants to the State of California to assist recovery efforts in 

coastal watersheds as part of the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund program. 

•		 Participated as a member of the Trinity River Restoration Program Task Force – NMFS 

provided technical input during the preparation of the Trinity River flow study and 

habitat restoration plan, which includes flow allocations and direct in-channel actions, as 

well as continued watershed restoration activities, replacement of bridges and structures 

in the flood plain, monitoring, and adaptive management. 

•		 Continued efforts as a member of the 16-member Klamath Conservation Program Task 

Force, which provides technical and scientific input to restoration programs and projects 

throughout the Klamath River Basin. 

•		 Consulted under ESA section 7 with the San Francisco District of the Army Corps of 

Engineers regarding their issuance of a Regional General Permit to the California 

Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) – The Permit is for restoration activities pursuant 

to CDFG’s “California Salmonid Stream Habitat Restoration Manual” and the resulting 

effects on ESA-listed salmon north of San Francisco to the Oregon border. The Permit 

authorizes CDFG (and the agents contracted, funded, and/or supervised by CDFG) to 

carry out fisheries habitat restoration program projects compliant with the manual. To 

date, more than 1,000 projects have been implemented, with hundreds of miles of Pacific 

salmon habitat being restored and available for use by juvenile and adult Pacific salmon. 

87
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

•		 Continued working closely with Resource Conservation Districts and the Natural 

Resource Conservation Service to help identify potential impacts to ESA species, to help 

develop measures to address the impacts, and to help obtain regulatory relief under the 

ESA. 

•		 Continued working with the California Resource Agency and numerous state, local, and 

regional agencies; non-profit and stakeholder groups; and consultants as part of the State 

of California’s Fish Passage Forum – The Forum addresses man-made barriers to adult 

and juvenile salmon passage throughout California’s coastal rivers and streams. 

•		 Continued prohibition on recreational fishing for coho salmon throughout the central 

California coast. 

•		 Streamlined programs through programmatic strategies and developed best management 

practices for federal, state, county, or city governments and private landowners for the 

benefit of salmon habitat – Some programmatic strategies and actions have been 

completed and others are currently under way. These include the following: 

∗		 State of California Road Maintenance Manual. 

∗		 Bank Stabilization Guidelines. 

∗		 Gravel Mining Guidelines (completed in 2004). 

∗		 Ground Water Management Guidelines. 

∗		 Water Development and Rights Policies. 

∗		 Minimum Flow Policies for dry seasons to ensure appropriate water temperatures 

and conditions (under way). 

∗		 Desalination Management Policy and Timber Harvest Guidelines (completed in 

January 2005). 

•		 Worked with five northern California counties (Siskiyou, Trinity, Del Norte, Humboldt, 

and Mendocino) to develop a Memorandum of Understanding regarding the Five 

Counties Road Program. NMFS has developed an Environmental Assessment and is 

currently drafting a Section 7 Biological Opinion for this plan. 

•		 Commenced collaboration with CDFG in the development of Hatchery and Genetics 

Management Plans (HGMPs) for the Trinity River and Mad River Hatcheries located in 

northern California – It is anticipated that upon completion of these plans, programs will 

qualify for the ESA 4(d) rule exemption from ESA take violations. 

•		 Adopted the standards established in the Oregon Coho Plan for the Rogue River coho 

salmon HGMP, whose goal is to limit hatchery spawners to less than 10 percent of the 

spawning population. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

Several priority recovery actions are needed for the SONCC coho salmon ESU, including the 

following: 

•		 Complete the recovery plan and begin to implement recovery actions. 

•		 Research and monitor distribution, status, and trends of salmon. 

•		 Complete and fund a population-monitoring plan. 

•		 Promote operations of current recovery hatcheries and develop HGMPs to minimize 

negative influences of hatcheries. 

•		 Improve freshwater habitat quantity and quality. 

88
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

•		 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). 

•		 Balance water supply and allocation with fisheries needs through a water rights program, 

designate fully appropriated watersheds (i.e., state programs for limiting new water 

rights/permits in fully appropriated watersheds), develop passive diversion devices or offstream storage, eliminate illegal water diversions, and improve criteria for water 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 non-hydropower 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: 1 

Ranking for the Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast coho ESU was 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. The 

Biological Review Team (BRT), conducting an updated status review in 2004, determined that 

the SONCC coho ESU is “likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future.” This 

determination was made based on substantially low abundance from historical levels, as coho 

salmon populations occupy roughly 50 percent of their historic range. Long-term abundance 

trends are clearly down but stable on the Oregon side of the ESU, and there is concern for many 

lost coho populations within the larger river basins – namely the Rogue, Klamath, and Trinity 

Rivers. Strong risks to the abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity of this ESU 

have largely persisted since its status was first reviewed, and the magnitude of threat for this 

ESU is high. 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 known 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. 

89
 
 

 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

Salmon Recovery in the Southwest 

Northern California Steelhead DPS (Oncorhynchus mykiss) 

Date Listed: June 7, 2000; reclassified as a DPS January 5, 2006 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: 

No recovery plan has been completed for this DPS. Current progress includes development of a 

recovery outline, a recovery plan template, recovery plan chapters and an assessment of threats 

applying The Nature Conservancy protocols. A draft recovery plan is expected in June 2007, 

with a final plan to be completed in December 2007. 

Species Status: 

The Northern California (NC) 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 NC 

steelhead DPS. Although data were relatively limited, analysis by the original Biological 

Review Team (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 analyzed for the 2005 status review showed the overall trend in adult returns for the Middle 

Fork Eel River portion of the NC steelhead DPS was slightly downward. Similarly, return data 

for summer-run steelhead in the Mad River showed a downward trend. Data collected of 

juvenile abundance for 10 independent populations within the NC steelhead DPS showed both 

upward and downward trends. 

The two artificial propagation programs that are part of the NC steelhead DPS are thought to 

decrease the risk of extinction 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 NC DPS remain likely to 

become endangered in the foreseeable future. 

Threats and Impacts: 

Limiting threats and impacts to this DPS include the following: 

• Agricultural operations. 

• Artificial barriers to fish passage: 

90
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

∗		 Canal and pipeline crossings. 

∗		 Conditions severing surface/subsurface hydrologic connection of stream channel 

and wetlands. 

∗		 Dams. 

∗		 Erosion-control structures. 

∗		 Flood-control structures. 

∗		 Pits from gravel mining. 

∗		 Road crossings (e.g., bridges, culverts, and low-water fords). 

•		 Forestry operations. 

•		 Gravel extraction. 

•		 Illegal harvest. 

•		 Streambed alteration. 

•		 Substandard fish screens on diversions. 

•		 Suction dredging. 

•		 Unscreened water diversions. 

•		 Urbanization. 

•		 Water demand exceeding availability. 

•		 Water pollution. 

•		 Potential genetic modification in hatchery stocks resulting from domestication selection. 

•		 Incidental mortality from catch-and-release hooking. 

•		 Climatic variation leading to drought, flooding, and variable ocean conditions. 

•		 Predation. 

•		 Non-federal timber harvest operations are identified in the final listing notice as a critical 

threat to this DPS. 

The following limiting factors, and their level of threat to this DPS, were identified in the 2006 

Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund Report to Congress: 

Degraded Habitat-Estuarine and Nearshore Marine: Moderate to High 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: 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 

Conservation Actions: 

Accomplishments in 2004–2006 for this DPS include the following: 

•		 Preliminary scoping is underway between California and NMFS regarding a California 

State Forestry Habitat Conservation Plan. 

•		 Implementing Fish Friendly Farming program, a multi-agency, third-party certification 

and technical assistance program for wine grape growers practicing best management 

91
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

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. 

•		 Implementing white papers and policies (technical guidelines) for instream flow, gravel 

mining, summer dams. 

•		 Collaborating with 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 Pacific Coast Salmonid Restoration Grant program. 

•		 Improved section 7 consultations. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

Several priority recovery actions are needed for the Northern California steelhead DPS, 

including the following: 

•		 Research and monitor distribution, status, and trends of steelhead. 

•		 Continue working with 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. 

•		 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). 

•		 Balance water supply and allocation with fisheries needs through a water rights program, 

designate fully appropriated watersheds (i.e., state programs for limiting new water 

rights/permits in fully appropriated watersheds), develop passive diversion devices or 

offstream storage, eliminate illegal water diversions, and improve criteria for water 

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 non-hydropower 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. 

92
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

Recovery Priority Number: 5 

A priority number of five was assigned to the NC steelhead DPS in accordance with the 

Recovery Priority Guidelines (55 FR 24296, Section B) and indicates the priority of the species 

for recovery plan development and implementation. Ranking for NC steelhead 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 Biological Review Team (BRT) which conducted the most recent status review 

of steelhead populations in Washington, Oregon and California concluded that natural 

populations of NC steelhead are likely to become endangered (Good et al. 2005). 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 NC 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 NC 

steelhead. 

93
 
 

 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

California Central Valley Steelhead DPS (Oncorhynchus mykiss) 

Date Listed: March 19, 1998; reclassified as a DPS January 5, 2006 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: 

No recovery plan has been completed for Central Valley steelhead, but a draft multi-species 

recovery plan including this DPS is anticipated in summer 2007, with a final plan in December 

2007. 

Species Status: 

The Central Valley (CV) steelhead DPS is thought to have occurred historically from the 

McCloud River and other northern tributaries to Tulare Lake and the Kings River in the southern 

San Joaquin Valley. It is estimated that more than 95 percent of historical spawning habitat is 

now inaccessible to this DPS, and little information is available regarding the viability of the 

naturally spawning component of the CV DPS. Anadromous steelhead spawning above Red 

Bluff Diversion Dam have a small population size and exhibit strongly negative trends in 

abundance and population growth rate. No escapement estimates have been made for the area 

above Red Bluff Diversion Dam since the mid-1990s. A rough approximation of numbers of 

out-migrating juvenile steelhead from 1998-2000 determined that, on average, 181,000 juvenile 

steelhead were naturally produced each year in the Central Valley by approximately 3,600 

spawning female steelhead. Prior to 1850, there were 1 to 2 million spawners, and in the 1960s 

about 40,000 spawners. The Biological Review Team (BRT) reported that recent spawner 

surveys of small Sacramento River tributaries (Mill, Deer, Antelope, Clear, and Beegum Creeks) 

and incidental captures of juvenile steelhead via monitoring on the Calaveras, Cosumnes, 

Stanislaus, Tuolumne, and Merced Rivers confirmed that steelhead are distributed throughout 

accessible streams and rivers. 

Although steelhead appear to remain widely distributed in Sacramento River tributaries, the vast 

majority of historic spawning areas are currently located upstream of impassable dams. Coastal 

steelhead are widely distributed in the Central Valley basin, with approximately half of the 

available habitat upstream of impassable dams. At higher elevations, habitat appears to support 

high densities of steelhead. It is not evident how CV steelhead and resident populations 

interacted before these dams were built. Steelhead produced from hatcheries have been widely 

stocked throughout the CV, Sierra Nevada, and southern Cascades. Stocking may have 

deleterious effects on native wild populations. There are reports of stocking hatchery steelhead 

or trout into some areas containing native wild CV steelhead populations. Identification of 

particular resident populations that may be part of the CV DPS has not been possible due to the 

lack of sufficient status and trends data. 

Two artificial propagation programs are considered to be part of the CV steelhead DPS; both are 

located in the Sacramento River Basin, consisting of large-scale mitigation facilities intended to 

support recreational fisheries for steelhead, and not to supplement naturally spawning 

populations. All production is marked and the hatchery fish are integrated with the naturalorigin fish. 

94
 
 

 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

Informed by the BRT’s findings and NMFS’ assessment of the effects of artificial propagation 

programs on the viability of the DPS, the Artificial Propagation Evaluation Workshop concluded 

that the California CV steelhead DPS altogether is “in danger of extinction.” 

Threats and Impacts: 

The primary limiting factor to the CV steelhead DPS is the inaccessibility of more than 95 

percent of its historic spawning and rearing habitat due to impassable dams. Where steelhead are 

still extant, natural populations are subject to habitat degradation and various impacts from water 

development activities and land use activities. This DPS requires cool water found at higher 

elevations, now largely located above impassable dams. The lack of monitoring of steelhead 

populations has limited our ability to adequately determine the abundance, trends and 

distribution of this DPS and our ability to determine how steelhead populations may have 

interacted before the dams were built. The geographically wide stocking of hatchery trout may 

have deleterious effects on native wild CV steelhead populations, but this cannot be assessed. 

Many of the threats that affect Chinook salmon may also negatively impact steelhead, such as 

inadequately screened water diversions, excessively high water temperatures, and predation by 

non-native species on the native fish. 

Conservation Actions: 

During 2004–2006, progress was made toward addressing some of the limiting factors and 

threats to this DPS, largely through ESA section 7 consultations and other ESA-related 

conservation efforts in the Central Valley. The Central Valley Project section 7 consultation 

with the Bureau of Reclamation likely contributed to habitat improvements benefiting the CV 

steelhead DPS, such as flow and temperature improvements. 

In addition, two large, comprehensive conservation programs in the Central Valley provide a 

wide range of ecosystem and species-specific protective efforts that benefit steelhead – the 

CALFED Bay-Delta Program and the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA). 

CALFED works with local communities to improve water quality and reliability for California’s 

water supplies, and to restore the San Francisco Bay-Delta ecosystem. Although not fully 

implemented, CALFED’s Ecosystem Restoration Program has funded projects involving habitat 

restoration; floodplain restoration and/or protection; instream habitat restoration; riparian habitat 

restoration/protection; fish screening and passage projects, research on and eradication of nonnative species, as well as on contaminants; research and monitoring of fishery resources; and 

watershed stewardship and outreach. The Environmental Water Account is used to offset losses 

of juvenile fish at the Delta pumps, and to provide higher instream flows in the Yuba, Stanislaus, 

American, and Merced Rivers to benefit salmonids. 

The CVPIA balances the priorities of fish and wildlife protection, restoration, and mitigation 

with irrigation, domestic water use, fish and wildlife enhancement, and power augmentation. 

The CVPIA has conducted studies/investigations 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, screening of 

water diversions, and habitat restoration. 

95
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

The Delta Pumping Plant Fish Protection Agreement and the Tracy Fish Collection Mitigation 

Agreement mitigate for State Water Project and pumping plant impacts by screening water 

diversions, enhancing law enforcement efforts to reduce illegal fish harvest, installing seasonal 

barriers to guide fish away from undesirable spawning habitat or migration corridors, restoring 

salmon habitat, and removing four dams to improve fish passage on Butte Creek for Chinook and 

steelhead. Approximately one-third of the approved funding for salmonid projects specifically 

targets spring-run Chinook salmon and steelhead in the upper Sacramento River tributaries. 

Ongoing measures to protect steelhead in the State of 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. The State also works closely with NMFS to review and 

improve inland fishing regulations. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

The inability to adequately conduct viability assessments for the CV steelhead DPS is largely 

due to the lack of comprehensive abundance and trend data for steelhead in the Central Valley. 

Recently, the CALFED program identified a proposal for development (but not implementation) 

of a CV steelhead monitoring program for directed action funding. Development and 

implementation of a monitoring and assessment program for CV steelhead is critical for 

assessing population viability and responses to extensive habitat restoration efforts funded by 

CALFED and CVPIA. 

CALFED’s Battle Creek Restoration Project is a priority action that has already restored many 

stream reaches in the 42 miles of Upper Battle Creek suitable for steelhead. The upper reach will 

be fully restored under an agreement between Pacific Gas and Electric (which operates nine 

hydroelectric dams in this reach) and several resource agencies. The intent is to remove five of 

the dams and dedicate the water rights to the environment. The remaining dams will have 

increased instream flows, thereby increasing habitat by 500 to 800 percent. The remaining dam 

structures would be modified with optimally designed fish ladders and screens, and meander belt 

and riparian forest would be restored. Continued funding and implementation of CALFED’s 

Ecosystem Restoration Program and the CVPIA remain an overall priority for continuation of 

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 CV 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) and because CV steelhead require cooler water at higher elevations 

(again, found largely above impassable dams). The recovery potential was determined to be low 

to moderate due to a lack of suitable habitat (requiring cold water and high elevation) below 

impassable barriers, inadequate status and trends data to assess DPS viability, and the 

widespread stocking of hatchery fish (which could negatively impact wild steelhead 

populations). Conflict was determined to exist because of anticipated future development and 

habitat degradation issues, as well as increasing demands for Central Valley water supplies. 

96
 
 

 

 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

Central California Coast Steelhead DPS (Oncorhynchus mykiss) 

Date Listed: August 18, 1997; reclassified as a DPS January 5, 2006 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: 

No recovery plan has been completed for this DPS. The Recovery Outline will be completed by 

March 2007. Current progress includes development of a recovery plan template, recovery plan 

chapters and an assessment of threats applying The Nature Conservancy protocols. A draft 

recovery plan is expected in June 2007, with a final plan to be completed in December 2007. 

Species Status: 

The Central California Coast (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 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.9

 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 numbers from 603,000 in the early 1960s, down 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: the 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. Small populations of steelhead occur in watersheds throughout the DPS, however, 

impassible dams have cut off substantial portions of habitat in some basins, generating concern 

9

 Much of the information provided here is from Good, T. P., R. S. Waples & P. B. Adams. 2005. Updated status of 

federally listed ESUs of West Coast salmon and steelhead. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical 

Memorandum, NMFS-NWFSC-66. 598 pp. 

97
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

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 upstream of, or 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. 

Ultimately, however, the most recent status review concluded that steelhead in the CCC DPS 

remain likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future. 

Threats and Impacts: 

Limiting threats and impacts to this DPS include the following: 

•		 Agricultural operations. 

•		 Artificial barriers to fish passage: 

∗		 Canal and pipeline crossings. 

∗		 Conditions severing surface/subsurface hydrologic connection of stream channel 

and wetlands. 

∗		 Dams. 

∗		 Erosion-control structures. 

∗		 Flood-control structures. 

∗		 Pits from gravel mining. 

∗		 Road crossings (e.g., bridges, culverts, and low-water fords). 

•		 Forestry operations. 

•		 Gravel extraction. 

•		 Illegal harvest. 

•		 Streambed alteration. 

•		 Substandard fish screens on diversions. 

•		 Suction (hydraulic) dredging. 

•		 Unscreened water diversions. 

•		 Urbanization. 

•		 Water demand exceeding availability. 

•		 Water pollution. 

•		 Potential genetic modification in hatchery stocks resulting from domestication selection 

•		 Incidental mortality from catch-and-release hooking. 

•		 Climatic variation leading to drought, flooding, and variable ocean conditions. 

•		 Predation. 

The following limiting factors, and their level of threat to this DPS, were identified in the 2006 

Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund Report to Congress: 

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 

98
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

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 

Conservation Actions: 

Accomplishments in 2004–2006 for this DPS include the following: 

•		 Preliminary scoping underway between State and NMFS regarding California State 

Forestry Habitat Conservation Plan. 

•		 Implementing 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. 

•		 Implementing white papers and policies (technical guidelines) for instream flow, gravel 

mining, summer dams. 

•		 Collaborating with 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 Pacific Coast Salmonid Restoration Grant program. 

•		 Improved section 7 consultations. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

Several priority recovery actions are needed for the Central California Coast steelhead DPS, 

including the following: 

•		 Research and monitor distribution, status, and trends of steelhead. 

•		 Promote operations of current recovery hatcheries and develop Hatchery and Genetics 

Management Plan 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. 

•		 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). 

•		 Balance water supply and allocation with fisheries needs through a water rights program, 

designate fully appropriated watersheds (i.e., state programs for limiting new water 

rights/permits in fully appropriated watersheds), develop passive diversion devices or 

offstream storage, eliminate illegal water diversions, and improve criteria for water 

drafting and dam operations. 

•		 Improve agricultural and forestry practices, in particular, riparian protections, road 

construction, and road maintenance. 

99
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

•		 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 non-hydropower dams). 

•		 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 by local municipalities, in order to improve channel and estuarine habitats. 

Recovery Priority: 3 

A priority number of three was assigned to the CCC steelhead DPS in accordance with the 

Recovery Priority Guidelines (55 FR 24296, Section B) and indicates the priority of the species 

for recovery plan development and implementation. Ranking for CCC steelhead is based on a 

high degree of threat, a low-moderate recovery potential, and anticipated conflict with 

development projects or other economic activity. 

A majority of the Biological Review Team which conducted the most recent status review of 

steelhead populations in Washington, Oregon and California concluded that natural populations 

of CCC steelhead are likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future. This determination 

was made based on the following factors: (1) the largest run for the DPS (the 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-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. 

100
 
 

 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

South-Central California Coast Steelhead DPS (Oncorhynchus mykiss) 

Date Listed: August 18, 1997; reclassified as a DPS January 5, 2006 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: 

No recovery plan has been completed for the South-Central California steelhead DPS, but 

recovery planning is underway. A Technical Recovery Team (TRT) has been convened and is 

nearing completion of the Phase I recovery planning process. The TRT has published two 

Technical Memoranda on the historic populations and over-summering habitat of steelhead, and 

is preparing reports on the viability criteria and research monitoring needs for the SouthCentral/Southern California Coast Recovery Domain. In addition, the NMFS Southwest 

Fisheries Science Center has prepared reports on the current regional distribution of steelhead 

and the population structure and ancestry of steelhead, based on a genetic analysis, for the SouthCentral/Southern California Coast Recovery Domain. It is anticipated that Phase I planning will 

be completed by early 2007. 

Phase II of the recovery planning process was initiated in 2006. As a precursor to development 

of the Recovery Plan, NMFS staff will produce a Recovery Outline based upon the Technical 

Recovery Team products and will identify the basic strategy for recovering the listed steelhead 

populations in the South-Central California Steelhead DPS. This Recovery Plan Outline was 

completed by the end of 2006. 

The target date for publishing the final Recovery Plan is December 2007. 

Species Status: 

The steelhead population within the South-Central California coast steelhead DPS has declined 

dramatically from estimated historic annual runs totaling 25,000 adults to less than 500 returning 

adult fish. Of the 36 watersheds historically supporting steelhead runs approximately 90 percent 

continue to support runs, though run sizes have been sharply reduced in most watersheds. All of 

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. 

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 which block or impede migration. 

The principal threats to the viability of the South-Central California steelhead DPS are associated 

with the four major river systems, the Pajaro, Salinas, Nacimiento/Arroyo Seco, and the Carmel 

Rivers. Each of these watersheds is heavily impacted by water facilities (both surface and 

101
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

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 (Santa Rosa, San Simeon, San Luis Obispo, and Arroyo Grande 

Creek) in the southern portion of the DPS 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 floodplains has altered the natural 

fluvial processes which 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. Limited harvesting of timber and 

increased development of residential structures (and associated roads) on steep-sided erosive 

slopes have resulted in accelerated erosion and sedimentation of river and stream channels. The 

continued spread and propagation of invasive plants and aquatic species have further degraded 

habitats for steelhead, particularly rearing juveniles. The loss and degradation of remaining 

estuarine habitat as a result of both point and non-point sources of pollution and artificial 

breaching of sandbars by local municipalities have reduced the suitability of these habitats for 

rearing, and acclimation. Finally, the introduction of exotic fish, and the stocking of non-native 

steelhead to support recreational fishing have occurred in many coastal rivers and streams and 

have also contributed to the decline of native steelhead and related resident trout populations, 

though this latter practice has declined since the listing of the species. 

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. Funding for these 

projects was provided by the Carmel River Steelheaders, and the CalAm Water Company. 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 retro-fitting such structures. 

Funding for these projects was provided through the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund. 

Planning for the potential removal of San Clemente Dam in the Carmel River has advanced. 

Funding for this project has been provided by the CalAm Water Agency and the California 

Department of Water Resources. 

Angling regulations for sport fishing for native steelhead have been changed to regulate 

recreational angling in virtually all coastal rivers and streams in the South-Central California 

steelhead DPS which 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, the California Department of Fish and Game 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 South-Central California steelhead DPS that fund, carry-out, or regulate 

projects such as flood protection, road construction, water diversion, and gravel mining. 

102
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

Recovery planning will require further investigation of life-history of the species, including 

utilization of estuarine habitat, juvenile growth and smolting patterns, distribution of residualized 

populations above impassable artificial barriers, and the relationship between putative resident 

and migratory forms of steelhead to refine population viability and delisting criteria for this 

species. 

Re-establishing access to upper watersheds in both small coastal streams and several of the larger 

river systems within the biogeographic region identified by the TRT is one of the highest 

priorities in the South-Central California steelhead DPS. Major remaining recovery actions 

include completion of the planning for the disposition of San Clemente Dam on the Carmel 

River. The re-establishment of adequate flow regimes for the Salinas and Nacimiento Rivers are 

also high priorities. Further investigations of potential recovery actions south of San Simeon are 

necessary to recover the threatened steelhead of South-Central California. 

Establishing a robust monitoring system for this DPS is essential for tracking population trends, 

the efficacy of recovery actions, and the attainment of viability and delisting criteria. 

Recovery Priority Number: 3 

Ranking for the South-Central California steelhead DPS was determined in accordance with the 

Recovery Priority Guidelines (55 FR 24296) and was based on a moderate magnitude of threat, a 

high potential for recovery, and anticipated conflict with current and future 

development/disturbance within the range of the DPS. The Biological Review Team (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 

sandbars by local municipalities between estuaries and the ocean, during periods when the 

estuaries are normally separated from the ocean by the sandbar. It is believed that 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 in both the smaller and larger watersheds. 

103
 
 

 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

Southern California Steelhead DPS (Oncorhynchus mykiss) 

Date Listed: August 18, 1997; Southern Range Extension May 1, 2002; reclassified as a DPS 

January 5, 2006 

Legal Status: Endangered 

Recovery Plan Status: 

No recovery plan has been completed for the South-Central California steelhead Distinct 

Population Segment (DPS), but recovery planning is underway. A Technical Recovery Team 

(TRT) has been convened and is nearing completion of the Phase I recovery planning process. 

The TRT has published two Technical Memoranda on the historic populations and oversummering habitat of steelhead, and is preparing reports on the viability criteria and research 

monitoring needs for the South-Central/Southern California Coast Recovery Domain. In 

addition, the NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center has prepared reports on the current 

regional distribution of steelhead and the population structure and ancestry of steelhead, based on 

a genetic analysis, for the South-Central/Southern California steelhead Recovery Planning 

Domain. It is anticipated that Phase I planning will be completed by early 2007. 

Phase II of the recovery planning process was initiated in 2006. As a precursor to the 

development of a Recovery Plan, NMFS staff will produce a Recovery Outline based upon the 

TRT products and will identify the basic strategy for recovering the listed steelhead populations 

in the Southern California Steelhead DPS. This Recovery Plan Outline is expected to be 

completed by March 2007. 

The target date for publishing the final Recovery Plan is December 2007. 

Species Status: 

The steelhead populations within the Southern California steelhead DPS have declined 

dramatically from estimated historic annual runs totaling 55,000 adults to current totals of 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 

(Santa Maria, Santa Ynez, Ventura, and Santa Clara Rivers) in the northern portion of the DPS 

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 Southern California Steelhead DPS. Present 

population trends within individual watersheds continuing to support runs are unknown, but may 

vary widely between watersheds, and are likely declining in a majority of the watersheds within 

the Southern California Steelhead DPS. 

Threats and Impacts: 

The Southern California 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 associated with 

the four major river systems, the northern portion of the DPS (Santa Maria, Santa Ynez, Ventura, 

and Santa Clara Rivers). Each of these watersheds is heavily impacted by water infrastructure 

facilities (both surface and subsurface) and development of the floodplain and associated riparian 

104
 
 

 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

corridor (for agricultural, residential, and 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 (San Gabriel, Santa Ana, San Juan, Santa Margarita, and Sweetwater Rivers) in the 

southern portion of the DPS may impact the viability of this DPS. 

The majority of the spawning and rearing habitat of the major river systems has been rendered 

inaccessible as a result of dams, debris basins, road crossings, and other instream structures 

which block or impede migration of adult steelhead to headwater spawning and rearing 

tributaries, as well as restrict the emigration of juveniles to the ocean. Development of the 

floodplains has altered the natural fluvial processes which 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. 

Increased development of residential structures (and associated roads) on steep sided erosive 

slopes has resulted in accelerated erosion and sedimentation of river and stream channels, and 

the remaining estuarine habitat. 

The continued spread and propagation of invasive plants and aquatic species have 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 by local municipalities has further 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 in many 

coastal rivers and streams also contributed to the decline of native steelhead and related resident 

trout populations through competition for food and other resources, though the latter practice has 

declined since the listing of the species. 

Conservation Actions: 

Inventories of impediments have been be conducted on major watersheds (Santa Maria/Sisquoc, 

Santa Ynez, Santa Ynez Mountain complex, Ventura, Santa Clara, and Santa Monica Mountains 

complex). Fish passage facilities have been constructed on Hilton Creek (Santa Ynez River); 

San Ysidro Creek (Santa Ynez Mountains);Ventura River at the Robles Diversion Dam; Santa 

Paula Creek at the Harvey Dam; and Santa Paula Creek Flood Control Channel. Funding for 

these projects was provided by the California Coastal Conservancy, the California Wildlife 

Conservation Board, and the Pacific Coastal Salmon Restoration Fund. 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 retro-fitting (or in some cases eliminating) 

such structures (Horse Creek on the Sisquoc River). Funding for these projects was provided 

through the Pacific Coastal Salmon Restoration Fund and local funders. Planning for the 

removal of Matilija Dam in the Ventura River watershed (the largest dam removal project in the 

United States to date) 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. 

105
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

Angling regulations for sport fishing for native steelhead have been changed to eliminate 

recreational angling in virtually all coastal rivers and streams in the Southern California 

steelhead DPS which are accessible to adult steelhead migrating up from the ocean. 

Additionally, the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) has curtailed its stocking of 

hatchery reared trout and steelhead, limiting stockings to reservoirs, or stream reaches above 

impassible barriers. In at least one case CDFG has begun stocking sterile (triploid) fish to 

prevent the inter-breeding of hatchery reared fish with native steelhead. 

NMFS has formulated recommendations (in conjunction with the California Department of Fish 

and Game, the United Water Conservation District, and local stakeholders) regarding fish 

passage and migration flows at Pyramid and Santa Felicia Dams on Piru Creek (a tributary to the 

Santa Clara River) as part of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission re-licensing actions. 

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. 

Finally, NMFS has conducted both formal and informal section 7 consultations with federal 

agencies throughout the South-Central California Steelhead DPS that fund, carry-out, or regulate 

projects such as flood protection, road construction, water diversion, and gravel mining. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

Recovery planning will require investigation of 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-establishing access to upper watersheds in both small coastal streams and several of the larger 

river systems within each biogeographic region identified by the TRT is one of the highest 

priorities in the Southern California steelhead DPS. Major remaining recovery actions, include 

completion of the planning for the removal of Matilija Dam on the Ventura River and Rindge 

Dam on Malibu Creek. The re-establishment of adequate flow regimes for the Santa Maria, 

Santa Ynez, Ventura, and Santa Clara Rivers are also high priorities. Further investigation of 

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, are necessary to 

recover the endangered steelhead of Southern California. 

Establishing a robust monitoring system for this DPS is essential for tracking population trends, 

the efficacy of recovery actions, and the attainment of viability and delisting criteria. 

Recovery Priority Number: 3 

Ranking for the Southern California Steelhead DPS was determined in accordance with the 

Recovery Priority Guidelines (55 FR 24296) and was 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 Biological Review Team that was 

106
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

formed to conduct an updated status review in 2005 reiterated the conclusions reached from 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. It is 

believed that 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 for both the smaller and larger watersheds. 

107
 
 

 

 

 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

Central California Coast Coho Salmon ESU (Oncorhynchus kisutch) 

Date Listed: Listed as threatened on October 31, 1996; reclassified as a DPS January 5, 2006 

Legal Status: Endangered 

Recovery Plan Status: 

No recovery plan has been completed for this ESU. A recovery outline was completed and 

signed by Regional Headquarters in October 2005. Current progress includes development of a 

recovery plan template, recovery plan chapters and an assessment of threats applying The Nature 

Conservancy protocols. A draft recovery plan is expected in June 2007, with a final plan to be 

completed in December 2007. 

Species Status: 

The Central California Coast coho salmon ESU (CCC coho) 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.10 The artificially propagated stocks were found to be no more than moderately 

divergent genetically from the natural populations. 

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 exists 

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 presence-absence 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. Trends data for this ESU show a 

continuing decline in abundance. 

Threats and Impacts: 

Limiting threats and impacts to this ESU include the following: 

•		 Agricultural operations. 

•		 Artificial barriers 

∗		 Canal and pipeline crossings. 

∗		 Conditions severing surface/subsurface hydrologic connection of stream channel 

and wetlands. 

∗		 Dams. 

∗		 Erosion-control structures. 

∗		 Flood-control structures. 

10 The artificial propagation programs are: 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. 

108
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

∗		 Pits from gravel mining. 

∗		 Road crossings (e.g., bridges, culverts, and low-water fords). 

•		 Forestry operations. 

•		 Gravel extraction. 

•		 Illegal harvest. 

•		 Streambed alteration. 

•		 Substandard fish screens on diversions. 

•		 Suction (hydraulic) dredging. 

•		 Unscreened water diversions. 

•		 Urbanization. 

•		 Water demand exceeding availability. 

•		 Water pollution. 

•		 Potential genetic modification in hatchery stocks resulting from domestication selection. 

•		 Incidental mortality from catch-and-release hooking. 

•		 Climatic variation leading to drought, flooding, and variable ocean conditions. 

•		 Predation. 

The following limiting factors, and their level of threat to this ESU, were identified in the 2006 

Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund Report to Congress: 

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 

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: Moderate to High Threat 

Hatchery-related Adverse Effects: Moderate Threat 

Harvest-related Adverse Effects: High Threat 

Predation/Competition/ Disease: High Threat 

Conservation Actions: 

Accomplishments in 2004–2006 for this ESU include the following: 

•		 Preliminary scoping underway between State and NMFS regarding California State 

Forestry Habitat Conservation Plan. 

•		 Implementing 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. 

•		 Implementing white papers and policies (technical guidelines) for instream flow, gravel 

mining, summer dams. 

•		 Collaborating with FishNet 4C, a multi-county group, dedicating resources to county 

restoration activities focused on salmon and steelhead restoration. 

109
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

•		 Continued recovery hatchery improvements to coho salmon captive broodstock activities 

at Warm Springs Dam. 

•		 Continued participation with Pacific Coast Salmonid Restoration Grant program. 

•		 Improved section 7 consultations. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

Several priority recovery actions are needed for the Central California Coast coho salmon ESU, 

including the following: 

•		 Research and monitor distribution, status, and trends of coho. 

•		 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. 

•		 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). 

•		 Balance water supply and allocation with fisheries needs through a water rights program, 

designate fully appropriated watersheds (i.e., state programs for limiting new water 

rights/permits in fully appropriated watersheds), develop passive diversion devices or 

offstream storage, eliminate illegal water diversions, and improve criteria for water 

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 non-hydropower 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 by local municipalities, to improve channel and estuarine habitats. 

Recovery Priority Number: 1 

A priority number of one was assigned to the CCC coho DPS in accordance with the Recovery 

Priority Guidelines (55 FR 24296, Section B), and indicates the priority of the species for 

recovery plan development and implementation. 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 Biological Review Team agreed in 2004 that natural populations of coho salmon in 

the CCC 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% of coho streams no longer have spawning runs), 2) long-term trends clearly downward, 3) 

degraded habitats, 4) threats to genetic integrity due to stocking of hatchery fish, and 5) recent 

droughts and change in ocean productivity. It is believed a high potential for recovery is 

110
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

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, and forestry is the predominant land use. However, land use 

conversions from forestry and agriculture to urban sprawl are leading to additional adverse 

impacts to the salmon. Imminent land use changes are anticipated to conflict with the 

conservation needs of CCC coho salmon. 

111
 
 

 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

California Coast Chinook Salmon ESU (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) 

Date Listed: September 16, 1999; reaffirmed June 28, 2005 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: 

No recovery plan has been completed for this ESU. The Recovery Outline will be completed by 

March 2007. Current progress includes development of a recovery plan template, recovery plan 

chapters and an assessment of threats applying The Nature Conservancy protocols. A draft 

recovery plan is expected in June 2007, with a final plan to be completed in December 2007. 

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 Biological 

Review Team (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 contributes substantially to assessments of 

risk facing the CC Chinook salmon ESU. 

Artificial propagation of Chinook salmon from the seven hatcheries included in the CC Chinook 

salmon ESU remains at low levels. It is unknown if these hatcheries are a benefit or detriment to 

the naturally spawning portion of the ESU. 

Threats and Impacts: 

Limiting threats and impacts to this ESU include the following: 

•		 Agricultural operations. 

•		 Artificial barriers to fish passage. 

∗		 Canal and pipeline crossings. 

∗		 Conditions severing surface/subsurface hydrologic connection of stream channel 

and wetlands. 

∗		 Dams. 

∗		 Erosion-control structures. 

112
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

∗		 Flood-control structures. 

∗		 Pits from gravel mining. 

∗		 Road crossings (e.g., bridges, culverts, and low-water fords). 

•		 Forestry operations. 

•		 Gravel extraction. 

•		 Illegal harvest. 

•		 Streambed alteration. 

•		 Substandard fish screens on diversions. 

•		 Suction (hydraulic) dredging. 

•		 Unscreened water diversions. 

•		 Urbanization. 

•		 Water demand exceeding availability. 

•		 Water pollution. 

•		 Potential genetic modification in hatchery stocks resulting from domestication selection. 

•		 Incidental mortality from catch-and-release hooking. 

•		 Climatic variation leading to drought, flooding, and variable ocean conditions. 

•		 Predation. 

•		 Non-federal timber harvest operations are identified in the final listing notice as a critical 

threat to this ESU. 

The following limiting factors, and their level of threat to this ESU, were identified in the 2006 

Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund Report to Congress: 

Degraded Habitat-Estuarine and Nearshore Marine: Moderate 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 

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: Moderate to High Threat 

Conservation Actions: 

Accomplishments in 2004–2006 for this ESU include the following: 

•		 Preliminary scoping underway between State and NMFS regarding California State 

Forestry Habitat Conservation Plan. 

•		 Implementing 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. 

•		 Collaborating proactively with counties on General Plan Updates, Grading Ordinances, 

and Riparian Ordinances. 

113
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

•		 Implementing white papers and policies (technical guidelines) for instream flow, gravel 

mining, summer dams. 

•		 Collaborating with 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 Pacific Coast Salmonid Restoration Grant program. 

•		 Improved section 7 consultations. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

Several priority recovery actions are needed for the California Coast Chinook Salmon ESU, 

including the following: 

•		 Research and monitor distribution, status, and trends of Chinook. 

•		 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. 

•		 Conduct focused freshwater habitat restoration in salmon streams (e.g., erosion control, 

bank stabilization, riparian protection and restoration, and reintroduction of large woody 

debris). 

•		 Balance water supply and allocation with fisheries needs through a water rights program, 

designate fully appropriated watersheds (i.e., state programs for limiting new water 

rights/permits in fully appropriated watersheds), develop passive diversion devices or 

offstream storage, eliminate illegal water diversions, and improve criteria for water 

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 non-hydropower 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: 3 

A Priority Number of three was assigned to the CC Chinook salmon ESU in accordance with the 

Recovery Priority Guidelines (55 FR 24296, Section B) and indicates the priority of the species 

for recovery plan development and implementation. Ranking for the CC Chinook salmon ESU 

is based on a high degree of threat, a low-moderate recovery potential, and anticipated conflict 

with development projects or other economic activity. 

114
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

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 

spring-run Chinook salmon life history form. A low-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. 

115
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

Sacramento River Winter-run Chinook Salmon ESU (Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha) 

Date Listed: November 5, 1990; reclassified from threatened to endangered on January 4, 1994; 

reaffirmed June 28, 2005 

Legal Status: Endangered 

Recovery Plan Status: 

A draft recovery plan for the Sacramento winter-run Chinook salmon ESU was issued in August 

1997. A draft multi-species recovery plan, that includes updated information for this ESU, is 

under development and is expected to be completed June 2007, with a final plan expected in 

December of 2007. 

Species Status: 

The Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon ESU is represented by a single extant 

population. Construction of the Shasta and Keswick Dams completely displaced this ESU from 

its historical spawning habitat. Cold-water releases from the reservoir behind Shasta Dam 

artificially maintain the remaining spawning habitat. The productivity and abundance of the 

naturally spawning component of this ESU have exhibited marked improvement in recent years, 

compared to years of relatively low abundance in the 1980s and early 1990s. The Biological 

Review Team (BRT) noted that the recent measure of mean abundance obtained from data 

collected from 2000 to 2004, is only 3 percent of the peak mean (post-1967), and the BRT is 

particularly concerned about risks to the diversity and spatial structure of the ESU. Construction 

of Shasta Dam merged at least four independent populations into a single population, resulting in 

a substantial loss of genetic diversity, life-history variability, and local adaptation. Critically low 

salmon abundance (particularly in the early 1990s) imposed “bottlenecks” for the single 

remaining population, which further reduced genetic diversity. For this ESU, the BRT found 

extremely high risk for abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity, with the highest 

concern for spatial structure and diversity, and significant concern for abundance and 

productivity. While encouraged by somewhat recent increases in abundance of the single 

population, the majority opinion of the BRT believe that the naturally spawned component of the 

Sacramento River winter-run ESU is still “likely to become extinct within the foreseeable 

future.” 

Two artificial propagation programs are also part of the Sacramento River winter-run Chinook 

ESU. An artificial propagation program is continuing, and a captive broodstock program for 

winter-run Chinook was carried out, both at the Livingston-Stone National Fish Hatchery on the 

mainstem Sacramento River above Keswick Dam. A captive broodstock program was also 

maintained at the University of California’s Bodega Marine Laboratory. These programs 

(operated for conservation purposes since the early 1990s) were identified as high-priority 

recovery actions in the 1997 Draft Recovery Plan for this ESU. Because of increased 

escapement over the past several years, the captive broodstock programs have been terminated. 

An assessment of the effects of these artificial propagation programs on the viability of the ESU 

in total concluded that the programs decrease risk to some degree by contributing to increased 

ESU abundance and diversity, but have a neutral or uncertain effect on productivity and spatial 

116
 
 

 

 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

structure. A second naturally spawning population is considered critical to the long-term 

viability of this ESU, and plans are under way (but not yet implemented) to attempt 

establishment of a second population in the upper Battle Creek watershed, using the artificial 

propagation program as a source for fish. The artificial propagation program has contributed to 

maintaining diversity of the ESU through careful use of spawning protocols to maximize genetic 

diversity of propagated fish and minimize impacts on the naturally spawning population. In 

addition, the artificial propagation and captive broodstock programs have contributed to 

preserving the genome of this ESU. 

Threats and Impacts: 

As winter-run Chinook salmon historically were dependent on access to spring-fed tributaries to 

the upper Sacramento River that remained cool during summer and early fall, the most obvious 

impact to this ESU was the construction of Shasta Dam. The dam blocked access to the ESU’s 

entire historic spawning habitat. With cold-water releases from Shasta creating conditions 

suitable for winter-run Chinook salmon 100 feet below the dam, this species was able to survive 

habitat alteration, but experienced significant impacts. Presumably, there were several 

independent populations of winter-run Chinook salmon in the Pitt, McCloud, and Little 

Sacramento Rivers, and in various tributaries to these rivers, such as Hat Creek and the Fall 

River. These populations merged to form the current single population. Any populations that 

may have existed in Battle Creek and the Calaveras River have since been extirpated. This ESU 

continues to be threatened by having only one extant population, low population size (compared 

to historic levels), vulnerability to drought, inadequately screened or unscreened water 

diversions, predation at artificial structures and by non-native species, pollution (e.g., Iron 

Mountain Mine), adverse flow conditions, high summer water temperatures, unsustainable 

harvest rates, and passage problems at various structures. 

Conservation Actions: 

Numerous conservation actions were conducted from 2004–2006 for the Sacramento River 

winter-run Chinook ESU. 

The Central Valley Project section 7 consultations with the Bureau of Reclamation likely 

contributed to habitat improvements benefiting the Sacramento River winter-run Chinook 

salmon ESU. Implementation of the 1992 reasonable and prudent alternative has provided 

substantial benefits to this ESU by improving habitat and fish passage conditions in the 

Sacramento River and Delta. Such improvement likely has contributed to increases in 

abundance and productivity over the past decade through actions such as maintenance of 

minimum water flows during fall and winter months, establishment of temperature criteria to 

support spawning and rearing upstream of Red Bluff Diversion Dam (coupled with water 

releases from Shasta Dam), operation of the Red Bluff Diversion Dam gates for improved adult 

and juvenile fish passage, and constraints on Delta water exports to reduce impacts on juvenile 

outmigrants. 

In addition, two large, ongoing comprehensive conservation programs in the Central Valley 

provide a wide range of ecosystem and species-specific protective efforts benefiting Chinook 

salmon – CALFED and the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA). CALFED is a 

cooperative effort of more than 20 state and federal agencies working with local communities to 

117
 
 

 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

improve water quality and reliability for California’s water supplies, and has made efforts to 

restore the San Francisco Bay-Delta. Though not fully implemented, CALFED’s Ecosystem 

Restoration Program has funded 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. CALFED established the Environmental Water 

Account to offset losses of juvenile fish at the Delta pumps and to provide higher instream flows 

in the Yuba, Stanislaus, American, and Merced Rivers to benefit native fish, including salmon. 

The CVPIA balances the priorities of fish and wildlife protection, restoration, and mitigation 

with irrigation, domestic water use, fish and wildlife enhancement, and power augmentation. 

The Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 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. 

Habitat restoration includes water acquisition for instream flows; channel restoration and 

enhancement; removal of dams and blockages to migration; gravel replenishment; and 

construction or modifications of devices to improve instream habitat, and to improve access or 

reduce fish mortalities during migrations (such as fish ladders and screening diversions). 

Harvest protective measures benefiting winter-run Chinook salmon include seasonal constraints 

on sport and commercial fisheries south of Point Arena. In addition, the State has listed winterrun Chinook under the California Endangered Species Act, and has thus established specific inriver fishing regulations and no-retention prohibitions designed to protect this ESU (e.g., 

management measures for time and area closures, gear restrictions, and zero bag limits in the 

Sacramento River). 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

The primary priority remaining for the winter-run Chinook salmon ESU is the establishment of 

an additional population or populations within the ESU. With only one population, the effects of 

other remaining threats (e.g., population size, unscreened water diversions, adverse water flow 

and temperature conditions, passage problems at various structures, and risk from drought 

conditions) are exacerbated. Reduction of all threats contributes to fulfillment of the Viable 

Salmon Population criteria for a viable ESU. CALFED’s Battle Creek Restoration Project is 

another priority action to address limiting factors. This project has already restored stream 

reaches in the 42 miles of Upper Battle Creek suitable for winter-run Chinook salmon. The 

upper reach is to be fully restored under an agreement between Pacific Gas and Electric (which 

operates nine hydroelectric dams in this reach) and the resource agencies. The intent is to 

remove five of the dams and dedicate the water rights to the environment. The remaining dams 

will have increased instream flows, resulting in a habitat increase of 500 to 800 percent of linear 

miles of stream reopened for fish access. In addition, remaining dam structures would be 

modified with optimally designed fish ladders and screens, and the meander belt and riparian 

forest would be restored. Continued funding and implementation of CALFED’s Ecosystem 

118
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

Restoration Program and the CVPIA remain a priority overall 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: 3 

The recovery priority number for the Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon ESU was 

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. 

119
 
 

 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

Central Valley Spring-run Chinook Salmon ESU (Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha) 

Date Listed: September 16, 1999; reaffirmed June 28, 2005 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: 

No recovery plan has been completed for this ESU. A draft multi-species recovery plan, that 

includes updated information for this ESU, is under development and is expected to be 

completed June 2007, with a final plan expected in December of 2007. 

Species Status: 

The Central Valley (CV) spring-run Chinook salmon ESU has been reduced from an estimated 

17 historical populations to only three extant natural populations with consistent spawning runs 

(on Mill, Deer, and Butte Creeks, which are tributaries to the Sacramento River). These 

remaining natural populations reached low abundance levels during the late 1980s (67 to 243 

spawners compared to a historic peak of about 700,000 spawners), and are within close 

geographic proximity, making them vulnerable to disease and catastrophic events. CV springrun Chinook require cool water while they mature in freshwater over the summer. Summer 

water temperatures in the CV are suitable for Chinook salmon only above the 150 to 500 meter 

elevation above mean sea level. Most such habitat in the CV is now upstream of impassable 

dams. The upper Sacramento River supports a small spring-run population, but its status is 

poorly documented and the degree of hybridization with fall-run Chinook salmon is unknown. 

Of numerous Sierra Nevada stream populations only two remain – the Feather River and the 

Yuba River populations. The Feather River population is dependent on Feather River Hatchery 

(FRH) production (which is considered part of the ESU), but may have hybridized with fall-run 

Chinook. The status of the Yuba River population is largely unknown, other than appearing to 

be small. An overall loss of diversity has resulted from the extirpation of spring-run populations 

in most of the CV, including all the San Joaquin tributaries. The Biological Review Team (BRT) 

views the FRH as a major threat to the genetic integrity of the remaining wild spring-run 

comprising this ESU. 

The recent 5-year mean abundance for the three naturally spawning populations remains 

relatively small (500 to over 4,500 spawners); however, short and long-term productivity trends 

are positive and population sizes have shown continued increases over the abundance levels of 

the 1980s. The BRT has noted moderately high risk for abundance, spatial structure, and 

diversity criteria, but a lower risk for productivity (reflecting the recent positive trends). Based 

upon this risk assessment, the strong majority opinion of the BRT is that the CV spring-run 

Chinook salmon ESU is “likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future.” No 

artificially propagated populations of spring-run Chinook in this ESU mitigate the BRT 

assessment. 

120
 
 

 

 

 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

Threats and Impacts: 

The CV spring-run Chinook salmon ESU is currently faced with three primary limiting factors 

and threats: (1) loss of most historic spawning habitat, (2) degradation of the remaining habitat, 

and (3) genetic threats from the FRH spring-run Chinook salmon program. Spring-run Chinook 

require cool freshwater in summer, most of which is upstream of impassable dams. The ESU is 

limited to only three natural populations of spring-run (on Mill, Deer, and Butte Creeks) that 

have consistent spawning runs, one small and largely unknown population on the Yuba River, 

and a Feather River population dependent on FRH production. This ESU continues to be 

threatened by habitat loss, degradation and modification, small hydropower dams and water 

diversions that reduce or eliminate instream flows during migration, unscreened or inadequately 

screened water diversions, excessively high water temperatures, and predation by non-native 

species. 

Conservation Actions: 

During 2004–2006, progress was made in addressing some of the limiting factors and threats to 

this ESU, largely through ESA section 7 consultations and other ESA-related conservation 

efforts in the Central Valley. The Central Valley Project section 7 consultation with the Bureau 

of Reclamation has likely contributed to habitat improvements benefiting the CV spring-run 

Chinook salmon ESU, such as flow and temperature improvements. 

In addition, two large, comprehensive conservation programs in the Central Valley provide a 

wide range of ecosystem and species-specific protective efforts benefiting spring-run Chinook 

salmon – CALFED and the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA). CALFED is a 

cooperative effort of more than 20 state and federal agencies working with local communities to 

improve water quality and reliability for California’s water supplies, while making efforts to 

restore the San Francisco Bay-Delta. Though not fully implemented, CALFED’s Ecosystem 

Restoration Program has funded projects involving habitat restoration, floodplain restoration and 

protection, instream and riparian habitat restoration and protection, fish screening and passage 

projects, research on non-native species and contaminants, research and monitoring of fishery 

resources, and watershed stewardship and outreach. CALFED established the Environmental 

Water Account to offset losses of juvenile fish at the Delta pumps, and to provide higher 

instream flows in the Yuba, Stanislaus, American, and Merced Rivers to benefit salmon. 

The CVPIA balances the priorities of fish and wildlife protection, restoration, and mitigation 

with those of irrigation, domestic water use, fish and wildlife enhancement, and power 

augmentation. The Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 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, particularly for spring-run Chinook salmon and steelhead. 

Habitat restoration includes water acquisition for instream flows, channel restoration and 

enhancement, removal of dams and blockages to migration, gravel replenishment, and 

121
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

construction or modifications of devices to improve instream habitat and to improve access or 

reduce fish mortalities during migrations (such as fish ladders and screening diversions). 

The Delta Pumping Plant Fish Protection Agreement and the Tracy Fish Collection Mitigation 

Agreement mitigate for State Water Project and pumping plant impacts through screening of 

unscreened water diversions, enhanced law enforcement efforts to reduce illegal fish harvest, 

installation of seasonal barriers to guide fish away from undesirable spawning habitat or 

migration corridors, salmon habitat restoration, and through removal of four dams to improve 

fish passage on Butte Creek for Chinook and steelhead. Approximately one-third of the 

approved funding for salmon projects specifically targets spring-run Chinook salmon and 

steelhead in the upper Sacramento River tributaries. 

Harvest protective measures benefiting spring-run Chinook salmon include seasonal constraints 

on sport and commercial fisheries south of Point Arena. In addition, the State has listed springrun Chinook under the California Endangered Species Act, and has thus established specific inriver fishing regulations and no-retention prohibitions designed to protect this ESU (e.g., fishing 

method restrictions, gear restrictions, bait limitations, seasonal closures, and zero bag limits), 

particularly in primary tributaries such as Deer, Big Chico, Mill, and Butte Creeks, which 

support spring-run Chinook salmon. The California Department of Fish and Game has 

implemented enhanced enforcement efforts in spring-run tributaries and adult holding areas, 

which have significantly reduced illegal harvest. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

Recovery of the CV spring-run Chinook salmon ESU continues to be limited by the close 

geographic proximity of the only three remaining wild spring-run Chinook salmon populations 

with consistent spawning runs, which makes them vulnerable to disease and catastrophic events, 

loss of spawning habitat, widespread degradation and modification of remaining habitat 

(especially spawning and rearing habitat), and genetic threats from the FRH. The many small 

hydropower dams and water diversions on the natal tributaries reduce or eliminate instream 

flows during spring-run migration periods, leading to predation by non-native species and 

excessively high water temperatures, and loss of fish attributed to unscreened or inadequately 

screened water diversions in migratory corridors. Reduction of all these threats contributes to 

fulfillment of the Viable Salmon Population criteria for a viable ESU. 

CALFED’s Battle Creek Restoration Project is a priority action. This project has already 

restored stream reaches in the 42 miles of Upper Battle Creek suitable for spring-run Chinook 

salmon. This upper reach is to be fully restored under an agreement between Pacific Gas and 

Electric (which operates nine hydroelectric dams in this reach) and resource agencies. The intent 

is to remove five of the dams and dedicate the water rights to the environment. The remaining 

dams will have minimum instream flows increased, resulting in a habitat increase of 500 to 800 

percent of linear miles of stream reopened for fish access. Remaining dam structures would be 

modified with optimally designed fish ladders and screens, and the meander belt and riparian 

forest would be restored. Continued funding and implementation of CALFED’s Ecosystem 

Restoration Program and the CVPIA remain a priority overall to continue habitat restoration 

efforts, screening of diversions, flow and temperature monitoring, status and trends research 

122
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

monitoring, modification of structures to improve fish passage, and overall water quality 

improvements. 

The FRH continues to influence spring-run Chinook salmon populations in the Feather and Yuba 

Rivers, due to straying and hybridization with (unmarked) fall-run fish. This remains a major 

threat to the genetic integrity of the remaining wild spring-run Chinook populations, and thus 

addressing this threat remains a priority. 

Recovery Priority Number: 7 

The recovery priority number for the CV spring-run Chinook 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 FRH. 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 CV 

water supplies. 

123
 
 

 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

ATLANTIC SALMON RECOVERY 

Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar) – Gulf of Maine DPS 

Date Listed: November 17, 2000, listed jointly by NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (FWS) 

Legal Status: Endangered 

Recovery Plan Status: 

The Final Recovery Plan for the Gulf of Maine DPS of Atlantic Salmon was published in 

November 2005 by NMFS and FWS. The Recovery Plan was prepared jointly by NMFS, FWS, 

and the Maine Atlantic Salmon Commission (ASC). 

The recovery plan builds on and expands recovery actions identified in the State of Maine’s 

Atlantic Salmon Conservation Plan for Seven Maine Rivers (MASCP). NMFS and FWS (the 

Services) intend to maintain and expand ongoing collaborative recovery efforts in cooperation 

with the State of Maine. The Services reviewed and considered the recommendations of the 

2004 National Research Council (NRC) report on Atlantic Salmon in Maine, and the recovery 

plan incorporates the recommendations of the NRC Report as appropriate. 

Species Status: 

The Gulf of Maine DPS of Atlantic salmon has declined to critically low levels. Adult returns, 

juvenile abundance estimates, and survival have continued to decline since the DPS was listed. 

In 2005, a total of 71 (90 percent confidence interval = 44 – 110) adult Atlantic salmon were 

estimated to return to DPS rivers. 

Threats and Impacts: 

As part of the recovery planning process, the Services assembled a team of technical experts 

from the Maine ASC, NMFS, and FWS to conduct a structured threats analysis. This evaluation 

of the geographic extent and life stages of Atlantic salmon affected by threats, and the severity of 

these effects, resulted in the following threats being identified as high priority for action to 

reverse the decline of Atlantic salmon populations in the Gulf of Maine DPS: 

• Acidified water and associated aluminum toxicity which decrease juvenile survival. 

• Aquaculture practices, which pose ecological and genetic risks. 

• Avian predation. 

• Changing land use patterns (e.g., development, agriculture, forestry). 

• Climate change. 

• Depleted diadromous fish communities. 

• Incidental capture of adults and parr by recreational fishermen. 

• Introduced fish species that compete or prey on Atlantic salmon. 

• Low marine survival. 

• Poaching of adults in DPS rivers 

• Recovery hatchery program (potential for artificial selection/domestication) 

• Sedimentation 

• Water extraction 

124
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

Conservation Actions: 

During 2004–2006, the NMFS Northeast Regional Office (NERO) and Northeast Fisheries 

Science Center (NEFSC) – in cooperation with the Maine ASC, 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 

health. Recovery actions and activities implemented during 2004–2006 included the following: 

•		 Prepared and published a final recovery plan. 

•		 Established a Recovery Team comprised of technical experts with knowledge of Atlantic 

salmon and the issues/threats they face, to advise the Services in coordinating and 

prioritizing recovery actions for the DPS. 

•		 Participated in international management of Atlantic salmon through the North Atlantic 

Salmon Conservation Organization (NASCO). Participation in NASCO has led to the 

development of multi-year regulatory measures for high seas Atlantic salmon fisheries, as 

well as international guidelines for salmon stocking and mitigation of threats from 

aquaculture practices. 

•		 Continued monitoring and assessment of 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 to 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. 

•		 Conducted an experimental study over two years to determine the potential for predator 

(double-crested cormorants) deterrence to increase survival rates of juvenile Atlantic 

salmon. This was done in conjunction with the telemetry work described above. 

•		 Conducted several experimental studies to determine the potential for mitigating impacts 

on the DPS from low pH due to acid rain. As part of this work, extensive water quality 

monitoring was conducted throughout the State of Maine. 

•		 Provided substantial support to the Maine ASC for assessment and management activities 

•		 Continued the Penobscot Bay Postsmolt Trawl Survey. This survey was designed to 

identify and quantify factors affecting nearshore survival of Atlantic salmon. 

•		 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. 

•		 Continued to monitor annual Atlantic salmon returns to Maine’s rivers through the use of 

traps, weirs, and redd counts 

•		 Worked with stakeholders on a variety of habitat restoration and protection projects. 

•		 Worked with the aquaculture industry to implement measures protective of the DPS, 

including containment measures for aquaculture facilities and fish marking strategies to 

identify escaped farmed salmon. 

•		 Led the efforts of a biological review team to review the relationship of other Maine river 

systems and salmon populations to the Gulf of Maine DPS. The biological review team 

completed this status review in early 2006. 

125
 
 

 

 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

•		 Organized a workshop to evaluate the effectiveness of the FWS-managed conservation 

hatchery program for Atlantic salmon in Maine. This workshop led to the initiation of a 

formal peer review of the hatchery program, which will be completed in 2007. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

As described in the Recovery Plan, the actions needed in the next several years for the Gulf of 

Maine Atlantic salmon DPS fall into several broad categories: 

•		 Protect and restore freshwater and estuarine habitat. 

•		 Minimize potential for take in freshwater, estuarine and marine fisheries. 

•		 Reduce predation and competition on all life stages of Atlantic salmon. 

•		 Reduce risks from commercial aquaculture operations. 

•		 Supplement wild populations with hatchery-reared DPS salmon. 

•		 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. 

The Recovery Plan identifies fifty-five specific “Priority 1” recovery actions that need to occur 

to recover the Gulf of Maine DPS of Atlantic Salmon. The Recovery Team, which was 

established in 2005, is ranking the recovery actions identified in the Recovery Plan, and will be 

submitting a report to the Services that identifies those recovery actions that should be of highest 

priority for implementation, based on several factors including recovery impact and feasibility of 

success. The report from the Recovery Team was submitted to the Services in January 2007, and 

is currently under review. 

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 population decline 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 developmental projects or forms of 

economic activity. Taken together, these rankings correspond to a recovery priority number of 

one. 

126
 
 

 

 

 

 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

NON-SALMONID FISH RECOVERY 

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

Date Listed: April 1, 2003 

Legal Status: Endangered 

Recovery Plan Status: 

The Draft Smalltooth Sawfish Recovery Plan published on August 23, 2006. 

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 south Florida between the Caloosahatchee River and the Florida Keys. 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. 

Threats and Impacts: 

The overriding threats to the species include 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. 

Conservation Actions: 

Conservation actions conducted in 2004–2006 include the following: 

•		 Studied the effects from Hurricane Charley (August 2004) on smalltooth sawfish habitats. 

•		 Supported mangrove habitat restoration efforts on the J.N. Ding Darling National 

Wildlife Refuge. 

•		 Supported a population viability analysis. 

•		 Supported the National Smalltooth Sawfish Encounter Database. 

•		 Supported a satellite tagging study of adult smalltooth sawfish. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

Priority actions needed to recover the species include the following: 

•		 Implement strategies to reduce bycatch, mortality, and injury, in specific fisheries to 

ensure the species’ viability. 

•		 Develop, distribute, and implement Safe Handling and Release Guidelines for smalltooth 

sawfish for recreational and commercial fisheries to minimize interactions, injury, and 

mortality. 

•		 Conduct surveys throughout the current range of the species to determine the locations of 

current sawfish habitats. 

•		 Determine which habitats, apart from shoreline mangroves, are currently used as nursery 

areas. 

127
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

•		 Monitor water flow into, and salinity of, nursery habitats in all recovery regions. 

•		 Conduct surveys throughout the current range of the species to determine the distribution 

of adult smalltooth sawfish and identify habitats of aggregation or local abundance. 

•		 Conduct surveys to determine the relative abundance of smalltooth sawfish off the east 

and west coasts of Florida. 

Recovery Priority Number: 7 

The smalltooth sawfish has a recovery priority number of seven, based on a moderate magnitude 

of threat, a low-moderate recovery potential, and the potential for economic conflict. 

128
 
 

 

 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

Gulf Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi) 

Date Listed: September 30, 1991, listed jointly by NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (FWS) 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: 

The final recovery plan for the Gulf sturgeon was published in September 1995. 

Species Status: 

The Gulf sturgeon is an anadromous fish whose present range extends from Lake Pontchartrain 

and the Pearl River system in Louisiana and Mississippi east to the Suwannee River in Florida. 

Gulf sturgeon adults spawn in freshwater, then migrate to feed and grow in estuarine/marine 

habitats. 

While the overall status of Gulf sturgeon is considered stable, the exact status remains unclear. 

No estimates of the historical population size of Gulf sturgeon or its subpopulations are 

available, although some commercial landing statistics are available from 1887 to 1985. 

Estimated population sizes for known Gulf sturgeon spawning rivers are shown in Table 6; 

notably all estimates are pre-Hurricane Katrina (August 2005) and some, particularly Pearl 

River, are likely to be reduced once new surveys are completed. As resources permit, NMFS is 

continuing to fund research to study and monitor Gulf sturgeon. 

Threats and Impacts: 

Population-limiting factors for the Gulf sturgeon are thought to include barriers to historical 

spawning habitat (e.g., dams), habitat loss and degradation, and poor water quality (including 

contaminants, which may also limit recovery of the species). Recreational and subsistence 

fisheries for this species contributed to population declines in the past, but this threat was 

eliminated in 1984, when the State of Florida enacted protective measures and in 1991, when the 

species was listed under the ESA. Currently, Gulf sturgeon are likely taken in limited numbers 

as bycatch in shrimp trawl fisheries in state waters. 

Table 5. Estimated spawning population sizes for known Gulf sturgeon spawning rivers. 

Known Spawning Rivers Estimated Population Size 

Pearl River 430 

Pascagoula River 234 

Escambia/Conech Rivers 506-687 

Yellow River 319–1,55011 

Choctawhatchee River 2000-3000 

Apalachicola River 62–218 

Suwannee River 7,65012 

11 Includes only fish>100 cm total length. 

12 Based on fish about 2 or more years old (>60 cm total length).
 

129 
 

 

 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

Conservation Actions: 

During 2004–2006, NMFS continued to work with federal agencies on reducing the impacts of 

actions that may affect Gulf sturgeon or its designated critical habitat through ESA section 7 

consultations. Specifically, NMFS conducted many emergency consultations resulting from 

direct and indirect impacts from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and has hired a biologist dedicated 

to the northern Gulf of Mexico. In 2006 NMFS, along with U.S. Geological Society, organized 

and lead the annual Gulf sturgeon workshop for researchers and managers. The information 

exchanged at the meeting allows the Gulf sturgeon science and conservation community to 

provide updates on the latest scientific and other developments with respect to the 

implementation of the Gulf sturgeon recovery plan. 

NMFS continues to fund a number of research projects to improve our understanding of Gulf 

sturgeon’s movements and use of habitat.

13 NMFS continues to relocate tagged fishes during the 

winter months along the coastal Gulf shores. We continue to examine timing and habitat use of 

migrating Gulf sturgeon through the estuarine environment following months of fasting, and 

have initiated a study with the U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center to 

specifically determine areas of designated critical habitat that provide valuable foraging areas by 

coupling environmental and substrate characteristics. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

Priority recovery actions needed for the Gulf sturgeon include the following: 

•		 Conduct a 5-year status review of the Gulf sturgeon with FWS. 

•		 Update, identify, initiate, and expand partnerships with state and federal agencies to 

identify and implement conservation activities and actions to reduce the cumulative 

effects to both the Gulf sturgeon and, in particular, its designated critical habitat (ESA 

sections 6 and 7). 

•		 Continue to improve ESA section 7 consultation coordination. 

•		 Nurture the established partnership between NMFS and FWS to continue joint research 

activities and management, and to expand coordination and consistency of consultations 

conducted by the two agencies. 

•		 Identify and initiate ESA section 6 agreements with Gulf Coast states, and subsequently 

coordinate Gulf sturgeon recovery plan implementation proposals for funding. 

•		 Update the 1995 Gulf sturgeon recovery plan. The plan – a product of NOAA, FWS, and 

the Gulf States Marine Fishery Commission – synthesizes information collected on 

individual genetically distinct subpopulations to assess status of the species. The 1995 

recovery plan outlined the most important actions required for recovery of the species, 

including: (1) a better understanding of the ecosystem and essential habitats of the 

species; (2) an assessment of riverine population sizes; and (3) a refinement of life history 

investigations in each river system to locate important spawning, foraging, and 

developmental habitats. Other recovery actions listed in the 1995 document include: (1) 

to conduct life history studies on the biological and ecological requirements of littleknown or inadequately sampled life stages; (2) to survey, monitor, and model riverine 

populations; and (3) to continue the culture of Gulf sturgeon. 

13 ESA section 6 funds are not currently available for Gulf sturgeon research, as no Gulf Coast state has a section 6 

agreement with NMFS that includes Gulf sturgeon. 

130
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

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 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 

classification, which is used by FWS but not by NMFS in designating recovery priority numbers. 

131
 
 

 

 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

Shortnose Sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) 

Date Listed: March 11, 196714 

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 

Saint Johns River in Florida. Its life history includes strong fidelity to the natal river resulting in 

substantial reproductive isolation and a significant degree of genetic distinctiveness between 

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. 

However, NMFS has not formally listed distinct population segments (DPS) of shortnose 

sturgeon under the ESA, and consequently, shortnose sturgeon remain listed as an endangered 

species range-wide. The demographic status of the species is mixed as trends of abundance for 

discrete populations vary across its range. There are no estimates available for historical 

population sizes of shortnose sturgeon, although accounts indicate sturgeon were abundant in 

many river systems along the East Coast. 

The status of many of the shortnose sturgeon populations remains undetermined, or estimates are 

dated. NMFS is able to conduct statistically sound, quantitative population estimates for, at 

most, two of the 19 populations every 2 to 3 years. As resources allow, NMFS continues to 

investigate status and life history of individual shortnose sturgeon populations. Generally, 

populations in the north are healthier than those in the south. The Hudson River population has 

shown the most dramatic improvement and may be hailed as a clear metric of ESA success: this 

population increased by more than 400 percent since the 1970s, with an estimated abundance of 

about 60,000 fish dominated by adults. The Kennebec Complex formed by the Sheepscot, 

Kennebec and Androscoggin Rivers in Maine, has also shown signs of recovery: between the 

late 1980s and 1990s, the population grew from 7,222 to nearly 10,000 fish. At least two of the 

northern populations have remained relatively stable over several decades. Recent research on 

the Delaware River estimates approximately 12,047 adults and research conducted in the 1980s 

estimated 12,796 adults. Since the mid 1970s, and until recently, the Connecticut River 

shortnose sturgeon population appeared to be static, with about 1,000 adults total in the lower 

and upper portions of the river. Recent research suggests that numbers in the lower portion of 

the river may be slowly increasing. Some populations previously thought to be extirpated 

(locally extinct) still exist. For example, prior to 1996, NMFS and other scientists thought 

shortnose sturgeon were extirpated from the Chesapeake Bay. Since 1996, 73 shortnose 

sturgeon have been documented in the Bay and its tributaries, including ten in the Potomac 

River. Similarly, recent Atlantic sturgeon work funded by NMFS on the Penobscot River 

14 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. 

132
 
 

 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

incidentally caught 62 shortnose sturgeon; these were the first confirmed catches of shortnose 

sturgeon in the Penobscot since 1978. 

In the South there are population estimates for the Cooper River, South Carolina (301 adult fish 

in 1998); Altamaha River, Georgia (6,320 fish in 2006); Ogeechee River, Georgia (147 fish in 

2000); Savannah River, Georgia (3,000 fish in 1999); and the Cape Fear River, North Carolina 

(50 fish in 1995). 

NMFS continues to support surveys in other southern rivers to determine if shortnose sturgeon 

are present. In North Carolina, despite focused surveying, no shortnose were found in the Neuse 

River, NC, however we did receive an unconfirmed report of two shortnose sturgeon in 2006. In 

South Carolina we have confirmed that shortnose sturgeon are present in the following systems: 

Savannah, Ashepoo, Edisto, Cooper, Santee, Congaree, Sampit, Great and Little Pee Dee, Black 

and Waccamaw (M. Collins SCDNR, Pers. Comm.). 

Threats and Impacts: 

Many threats to the species are range-wide, while others are specific to the Southeast. Rangewide, 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 or disposal of material into rivers, or related development activities 

involving estuaries/riverine mudflats and marshes, remain constant threats. Threats have been 

reduced in some rivers to allow shortnose sturgeon populations to grow or stabilize. In other 

rivers, particularly in the Southeast, sturgeon population size remains low or the status is 

unknown. 

Recent studies indicate that shortnose sturgeon, particularly in early life stages, are sensitive to 

low dissolved oxygen levels at high water temperatures. During summer, such hypoxic and 

anoxic areas are common, occurring annually in southern rivers and in portions of the 

Chesapeake Bay. These events present adverse environmental conditions that pose a significant 

threat to shortnose sturgeon recovery. 

In addition, bycatch, predominantly in shad gillnet fisheries, also likely adversely impact the 

recovery of some shortnose sturgeon populations. The extent of shortnose sturgeon bycatch is 

not currently known. 

Conservation Actions: 

NMFS has initiated a status review of the shortnose sturgeon to determine if the current listing 

classification is accurate. An important first step of the review will be to determine population 

structure and evaluate if DPSs should be designated. 

Pursuant to ESA section 7, NMFS continues to consult with federal agencies on actions that may 

affect shortnose sturgeon. Through these consultations, NMFS has worked effectively with 

federal agencies to ensure they carry out their actions in a manner that will not jeopardize the 

continued existence of shortnose sturgeon. Since 2004, NMFS has consulted on over 260 actions 

taking place in the NMFS Southeast Region and Northeast Region. These consultations have 

133
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

been completed on a range of activities, including dredging of navigation channels and private 

facilities, water quality standards and regulations, bridge construction and various other actions. 

NMFS participated in negotiating a Settlement Agreement with the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission and other parties on the effects of the continued operation of the Holyoke 

hydroelectric facility on the Connecticut River. The terms of the Settlement ensure that 

shortnose sturgeon will have a safe and effective means of passage above and below the 

facility’s dam. NMFS has also completed consultation on the continued operation of the 

Lockwood hydroelectric project on the Kennebec River and on the effects of the construction 

and operation of a liquefied natural gas facility on the Delaware River. These consultations will 

ensure that effects to shortnose sturgeon from these projects are minimized and that sufficient 

habitat remains for this species. 

NMFS is continuing to work with the State of Maryland to develop a conservation plan to 

minimize and mitigate effects of Chesapeake Bay commercial fishing on shortnose sturgeon. 

This plan may serve as a model for other states, to work with NMFS to develop similar plans. 

In the South, NMFS is continuing coordination with Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for 

the re-licensing of the Santee Cooper Hydroelectric Project, as the Project’s dams impede 

passage to spawning habitat. We are also continuing coordination with Georgia Ports for the 

Savannah Harbor Expansion Plan, as that action directly impacts critical over-wintering and 

foraging habitat. 

NMFS currently supports research activities to improve our understanding of shortnose sturgeon 

behavior, abundance, health, habitats and genetic identification. However, these projects are 

limited by a lack of funding. In the north, research is continuing on the Delaware River to 

monitor the movements and habitat use of juvenile shortnose sturgeon. A 2006 ESA Section 6 

funded project will be conducted by the state of New Jersey to investigate early life stages of 

shortnose sturgeon on the Delaware. The State of Maryland received ESA Section 6 Funds 

(2005 and 2004) in support of the conservation plan noted above to investigate distribution, 

movements and health of shortnose sturgeon. Together with the National Park Service, NMFS 

has provided funding for ongoing research for status, behavior and genetics work on shortnose 

sturgeon in the Potomac. The movements of Penobscot River fish in Maine are being tracked 

ultrasonically to discover important habitats in the river, especially spawning areas. Also, NMFS 

is supporting a larger Penobscot study that will result in an additional year of mark and recapture 

data for shortnose sturgeon in 2007, and an estimate of abundance for shortnose sturgeon. 

Lastly, several small contracts were funded by NMFS for genetic and contaminant analysis and 

to evaluate the effectiveness of side scan sonar technologies to detect shortnose sturgeon in the 

wild. 

In the South, Section 6 funding has recently been awarded to: support surveys to determine 

population dynamics and critical habitat of shortnose in the Ogeechee River; investigate habitat 

use and inter-basin transfer on the Santee-Cooper Rivers; and conduct aging and genetic work in 

both the Savannah and Santee-Cooper Systems. In addition, we have utilized regional funding to 

survey the Altamaha and Savannah Rivers. 

134
 
 

 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

Priority recovery actions needed for shortnose sturgeon include the following: 

•		 Continue to gather information pertaining to individual riverine populations including 

population size, and spawning and foraging habitats – particularly those in the 

Chesapeake Bay, Penobscot, Cape Fear, Ogeechee, Savannah, Satilla and St. Marys 

rivers. 

•		 Conduct studies to assess the sensitivity of shortnose sturgeon life stages to various 

contaminants and water quality issues (primarily low dissolved oxygen coupled with high 

temperature). 

•		 Work with federal, state, and private partners to ensure adequate water flows and quality, 

and improve access to important habitats. 

•		 Explore habitat restoration options (e.g., creation of spawning habitat, restoration of 

access to historical habitat, restoration of foraging habitat). 

•		 Determine the extent and impact of bycatch on shortnose sturgeon populations and 

implement methods to reduce this bycatch. 

•		 Complete the shortnose sturgeon status review initiated in 2006. 

•		 Following the completed status review, convene a meeting of the shortnose sturgeon 

recovery team to review any new recommendations for recovery made in the status 

review. The team should evaluate progress made toward completing each of the 

recovery/research tasks identified in the status review and in the implementation schedule 

of the 1998 recovery plan. The recovery plan recognizes that range-wide and riverspecific differences exist in recovery and research priorities. Therefore, two regional 

implementation teams may be needed to address shortnose sturgeon recovery and 

research priorities on a regional basis. A regional meeting for each implementation team 

is necessary to determine priorities for each individual population. 

Recovery Priority Number: 5 

The recovery priority number for shortnose sturgeon is five. This determination 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 five. 

135
 
 

 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

Green Sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris) – Southern DPS 

Date Listed: April 7, 2006 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: 

No Recovery Plan has been developed for this species. Rulemaking for critical habitat 

designation and ESA take prohibitions are currently underway and expected to be proposed in 

the next 12 months. After that time, a recovery planning schedule will be developed. 

Species Status: 

Acoustic tagging studies investigating oceanic migration and behavior patterns of Northern 

(north of and including the Eel River in California) and Southern DPS (south of the Eel River) 

green sturgeon suggest that some individuals engage in sustained migrations (up to 58 km per 

day) over long distances (California to southeast Alaska), and that spawning periodicity for some 

individuals may be more frequent (every 2 years) than previously thought (every 3 to 4 years). 

The Sacramento River contains the only known spawning population of green sturgeon within 

the boundaries of the Southern DPS. There has likely been a substantial loss of spawning habitat 

above the Keswick and Shasta Dams which has rendered the single remaining main-stem 

population particularly vulnerable to threats. Although there is currently no evidence of 

spawning in the Feather River, it is likely that spawning occurred there historically and that 

spawning habitat has been lost behind the Oroville Dam. 

There is no direct evidence that demonstrates a clear decline in abundance of Southern DPS 

green sturgeon. There are two pieces of indirect evidence that suggest a downward trend in 

abundance of the Southern DPS of green sturgeon. The first is the most recent abundance 

estimates for legal-size white sturgeon (117–183 cm FL) in San Pablo Bay generated by the 

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), indicating an approximate 10-fold decline 

from estimates made in 1998, compared to those made in 2005. Green sturgeon abundance 

estimates likely mirror the declines seen for white sturgeon based on a ratio of legal-size green 

sturgeon to legal-size white sturgeon that was established by CDFG as part of the San Pablo Bay 

sampling program. Secondly, juvenile entrainment data provide an indication of how abundance 

has changed over time (1968-present), with actual numbers of individuals observed per annum 

prior to 1986 being on the order of 31⁄2 times higher than those observed after 1986. 

Threats and Impacts: 

There is evidence that threats affecting the long-term survival of the Southern DPS are likely to 

be increasing in severity (Table 7). The primary threat to the Southern DPS is the reduction of 

spawning to limited areas within the Sacramento River due to dams and other migration barriers. 

Insufficient water flow and high temperatures are ongoing problems, although temperature 

problems in the Sacramento River have been reduced since the installation of the Shasta Dam 

temperature control device in 1997. Water diversions pose an unknown but potentially serious 

threat to Southern DPS fish within the Sacramento and Feather Rivers and the Delta. Poaching 

also poses an unknown by potentially serious threat to Southern DPS fish because of high 

136
 
 

 

 

 

 

 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

demand for caviar and the decline of other sturgeon species around the world. The effects of 

contaminants and predation on green sturgeon by non-native species are also unknown, but likely 

less serious than habitat loss and poaching. Lastly, incidental take of Southern DPS fish in 

fisheries harvest continues to occur, but has been partly addressed in United States waters by 

recent efforts as described in the next section (“Conservation Actions”). 

Table 6. Threats assessment by river system within the Southern DPS. The specific effects of each threat on 

the Southern DPS and its habitat, the times of year when the Southern DPS encounters each threat, and the life 

stages vulnerable to each threat are listed. L=larvae; J=juvenile; and A=adult. 

River Threats Specific Effect Timing of Exposure Life Stage 

Sacramento Impassible barriers (Keswick 

and Shasta Dams) 

Adult migration barriers 

Block/prevent access to spawning 

habitat 

Upstream migration barrier 

Late-spring-early 

summer 

Late spring-early fall 

A 

A 

Insufficient flow Altered hydrology Low flow years L, J, A 

 Increased temperatures 

Water diversion 

Developmental abnormalities 

(reduced swimming performance) 

Increased likelihood of stress, 

physical injury, harassment 

Low flow years 

All months 

L, J, A 

L, J, A 

Non-native 

striped bass) 

species (e.g., Trophic alterations All months L, J, A 

Poaching Removal of Fish Unknown J, A 

Pesticides and heavy metals Contamination	 All months L, J, A 

Local fishing Removal of Fish January-May J, A 

Feather Impassible barriers (Oroville Block/prevent access to spawning Late-spring-early A 

Dam) habitat summer 

Extreme low flow rates Altered hydrology Low flow years L, J, A 

 Increased temperatures Developmental abnormalities Low flow years L, J, A 

(reduced swimming performance) 

Non-native species (e.g., Trophic alterations All months L, J, A 

striped bass) 

Poaching Removal of Fish Unknown J, A 

Pesticides and heavy metals Contamination All months L, J, A 

Local fishing Removal of Fish January-May J, A 

Conservation Actions: 

Major accomplishments in 2004–2006 for the Southern DPS green sturgeon include the 

following: 

•		 Fishing regulations: The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Commission 

approved the CDFG's proposed recreational fishing regulation changes for sturgeon on 

December 8, 2006. The regulations, effective March 1, 2007, provide that there will be no 

retention of green sturgeon, set a changed slot (size) limit and a bag limit of 3 for white 

sturgeon, and require implementation of a sturgeon report card system. These regulations 

offer additional protection to green sturgeon. On December 14, 2006, the Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife voted to 

prohibit the retention of green sturgeon in the Columbia River recreational fishery from 

Bonneville Dam, downstream to the mouth of the Columbia River. This prohibition 

137
 
 

 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

became effective on January 1, 2007. The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission 

adopted a permanent rule to prohibit retention of green sturgeon in recreational fisheries 

statewide, effective May 1, 2007. The retention of green sturgeon in Washington 

commercial fisheries has been prohibited statewide by permanent rule since January 26, 

2007. The retention of green sturgeon in Oregon and Washington Columbia River 

commercial fisheries has been prohibited by emergency rule since July 2006. 

•		 Salvage of green sturgeon at the Tracy Fish Collection Facility and the Skinner Delta Fish 

Protective Facility in the South Delta is ongoing. 

•		 Green sturgeon-focused research, including fish passage and genetics studies by 

University of California, Davis and acoustic tagging and tracking studies by NOAA to 

better understand the distribution and migration of green sturgeon is ongoing. 

•		 Activities and projects were conducted under the Central Valley Project Improvement Act 

and the California Bay-Delta Program for the conservation of the Southern DPS 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: 

Priority recovery actions needed for the Southern DPS green sturgeon include the following: 

•		 Direct assessment and monitoring of the Southern DPS 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 m bathymetric contour along the western coast of the 

continental United States and Alaska through out-migrant trapping and tagging programs. 

•		 Continuation of genetic analyses to better understand population structure of both 

Northern and Southern DPS green sturgeon.
 

•		 Continuation of acoustic tagging studies to help elucidate migratory and behavior patterns 

in coastal areas within the 110 m bathymetric contour along the western coast of the 

continental United States, Canada, and Alaska. 

•		 Continuation of 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. 

•		 Evaluation of fisheries impacts in Canadian fisheries, especially trawl fisheries on the 

west coast of Vancouver Island and in Hecate Strait. 

Recovery Priority Number: 5 

The recovery priority number for the Southern DPS of green sturgeon is five. This risk of 

extinction is believed to be moderate because, while 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, in particular spawning and rearing 

habitat, are carefully monitored and limited. There is conflict between the recovery of the 

Southern DPS of green sturgeon and economic interests. Central Valley agriculture, other 

sources of water resource use, and commercial and recreational fishing, are among some of the 

industries that will be affected by efforts to recover the Southern DPS of green sturgeon. 

138
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

PLANT RECOVERY 

Johnson’s Seagrass (Halophila johnsonii) 

Date Listed: September 14, 1998 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: 

A recovery plan for Johnson’s seagrass was completed in September 2002. 

Species Status: 

Johnson’s seagrass is only found along approximately 200 km of coastline in southeastern 

Florida. Results from surveys indicate the species’ geographic range appears stable. A 5-year 

review will be initiated in October 2006. 

Threats and Impacts: 

Johnson’s seagrass is threatened by several human and natural perturbations, including dredge 

and fill activities, construction of overwater structures, prop scarring, altered water quality, 

siltation, and storms. None of the threats identified at listing have been curtailed or eliminated. 

Cumulative impacts are a concern for the species. 

Conservation Actions: 

Conservation actions completed during 2004–2006 include the following: 

•		 Supported projects to determine the effects from Hurricanes Jeanne (September 2004) 

and Frances (September 2004) on the distribution of Johnson’s seagrass. 

•		 Supported the development of a population model to predict population growth rates. 

•		 Supported the establishment of permanent monitoring sites with the species’ range. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

Priority recovery actions needed for Johnson’s seagrass include: 

•		 Determine the mechanism for recruitment of patches and maximum dispersal distance of 

vegetative fragments. 

•		 Determine the precise northern and southern distributional limits of the species and 

monitor the temporal variation in these limits. 

•		 Determine whether patch size, abundance, or spacing vary from north to south and 

identify if there are presently any large distribution gaps. 

•		 Establish permanent monitoring plots within the range of the species. 

Species Recovery Priority: 7 

Johnson’s seagrass is assigned a recovery priority of seven, based on a moderate magnitude of 

threat, a low-moderate recovery potential, and the potential for economic conflict. 

139
 
1955

1957

1959

1961

1963

1965

1967

1969

1971

1973

1975

1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997 

 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

INVERTEBRATE RECOVERY 

White Abalone (Haliotis sorenseni) 

Date Listed: May 29, 2001 

Legal Status: Endangered 

Recovery Plan Status: 

A draft recovery plan for white abalone was completed in October 2006. 

Species Status: 

Overfishing has driven white abalone densities to such low levels, that despite fishery closure in 

1996, adults do not occur in high enough densities to successfully reproduce. Surviving white 

abalone may die in the near future without leaving younger animals to take their place. Wild 

populations are likely to go extinct unless supplementation of wild populations through diseasefree captive breeding can be achieved. 

Commercial and recreational exploitation of white abalone has occurred over the last 50 years in 

California, and landings data indicate that catches reached a peak from 1972-1974, and declined 

to near zero in just five years (Figure 9). Fishery-independent surveys conducted in Southern 

California since that time confirm a 99 percent reduction in white abalone density has occurred 

between the 1970s (densities on the order of 2,000 per hectare) and today (densities of less than 

20 per hectare). While the most recent estimates of total population size in three Southern 

California locations (Table 8) are higher than those estimated in a status review conducted in 

2000 (1,600 individuals), the reproductive viability of these populations is still believed to be 

very low, given that most individuals are reproductively isolated from one another (> 2 m apart 

from their nearest neighbor) and small individuals (< 9 cm) are absent in extant populations. 

Although commercial fishing for white abalone in Mexico is not occurring, preliminary data 

from surveys conducted in October of 2006 suggest that populations in Mexico have also 

declined dramatically in recent years. 

0 

8000 

16000 

24000 

32000 

40000 

48000 

56000 

64000 

72000 

Kg (Weight In Shell) 

Year 

Figure 9. California commercial catch (weight in shell) of white abalone reported in California 

Department of Fish and Game bulletins for the period 1955-1997. 

140 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

Threats and Impacts: 

Threats and impacts to white abalone include the following: 

•		 Critically low levels of abundance (< 0.1 percent of the estimated pre-exploitation 

population size) resulting in increased distance between individuals and repeated 

recruitment failure during the 1990s, leading to a decreasing population trend. 

•		 Reduced genetic diversity resulting in lower reproductive potential and fitness of wild 

populations. 

•		 Spread of disease through supplementation. 

•		 Illegal harvesting. 

•		 Habitat modification through human activities. 

•		 Habitat modification through environmental/climate change. 

Table 7. Estimates of white abalone population size based on density estimates, area surveyed and habitat 

area by depth for Tanner Bank, Cortes Bank and San Clemente Island during underwater remotely operated 

vehicle (ROV) and multi-beam sonar surveys conducted from 2002–2004. 

Depth Tanner Bank Tanner Bank Cortes Bank San Clemente 

2002 2004 2003 Island 2004 

30-40 1592.5±514.5 710.5±465.5 2853.6±2041.6 1215.2±1097.6 

40-50 8415.0±1827.5 2210.0±722.5 2580.3±1184.4 722.8±500.4 

50-60 2811.1±1240.2 2962.7±2135.9 1932.0±2114.1 0 

Total 12818.6±3582.2 5883.2±3323.9 7365.9±5340.1 1938.0±1598.0 

Conservation Actions: 

Conservation actions conducted in 2004–2006 for recovery of white abalone include the 

following: 

•		 Assessment and monitoring of historic and current white abalone populations at the 

Northern and Southern Channel Islands (2005–2006), and Baja California, Mexico 

(2006) by NMFS, the National Park Service, the Channel Islands Marine Resources 

Institute, and the California Department of Fish and Game. 

•		 Assessment and monitoring of white abalone habitat in the Northern and Southern 

Channel Islands (2005–2006) using high resolution acoustic remote sensing technology 

by NMFS, in cooperation with the United States Geological Survey and the California 

State University Monterey Bay. 

•		 Continued development of captive breeding and propagation program at the Channel 

Islands Marine Resources Institute (2004–present). 

•		 Examination of disease (i.e., Withering Syndrome) prevention and treatment among 

captively reared abalone by the University of Washington and the Bodega Bay Marine 

Laboratory (2004–present). 

•		 Examination and assessment of future outplanting sites and methodologies by NMFS, the 

Channel Islands Marine Resources Institute, the National Park Service, the California 

Department of Fish and Game, and the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary 

(2005–2006). Outplanting is the release into the wild of the progeny of captive breeding 

programs. 

•		 Examination of existing genetic structure of wild population in order to maintain genetic 

integrity of captively propagated abalone by the Scripps Institution of Oceanography 

(2004–2005). 

141
 
 

 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

•		 Initiation of abalone early life history studies at the Southwest Fisheries Science Center 

to: (1) develop techniques for producing disease-free abalone, and (2) identify 

appropriate outplanting methodologies through field experimentation (2005-present). 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

Priority recovery actions needed for white abalone include the following: 

•		 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. 

•		 Secure financial support for white abalone recovery. 

Recovery Priority Number: 2 

The recovery priority number for the white abalone is two. This risk of extinction is believed to 

be 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 may be 

reaching their maximum age and could die 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. 

There is little conflict between the recovery of white abalone and economic interests. 

Commercial and recreational fishing for the species is closed and, because of the species’ 

remoteness (extant populations occur in deep water, primarily >100 feet deep, and on offshore 

islands and banks), there is minimal conflict with anthropogenic activities. 

142
 
 

 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

Elkhorn and Staghorn Corals (Acropora palmata and A. cervicornis) 

Date Listed: May 9, 2006 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: 

No recovery plan currently exists for elkhorn and staghorn corals. 

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 species that are ubiquitous. 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 >97 percent. 

Threats and Impacts: 

The major threats to both species are disease, temperature-induced bleaching, and physical 

damage from hurricanes. These threats are severe, ongoing, synergistic, and have displayed an 

increasing trend in the recent past. Disease is widespread, episodic, unpredictable in its 

occurrence, and results in high amounts of mortality. Any rise in sea-surface temperature 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: 

Support was provided in 2006 for monitoring ecological performance of elkhorn coral by 

genotyping the individual colonies, and for ongoing research and monitoring of both elkhorn and 

staghorn corals at NMFS’ Southeast Fisheries Science Center. 

The NOAA Damage Assessment and Restoration Centers responded to a major ship grounding 

off the southern coast of Puerto Rico, which impacted a surprisingly healthy and dense staghorn 

coral reef. Emergency restoration resulted in the reattachment of approximately 800 fragments 

of staghorn coral and additional restoration will be completed as part of the case settlement. 

During the 2006 elkhorn and staghorn coral spawn, several scientists collected gametes to 

fertilize and rear in the lab. The work aims at identifying biological, chemical and physical 

requirements for fertilization, settlement, and recruitment. Additionally, some of the reared 

colonies will be re-located to the reefs from which they were collected. 

143
 
 

 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

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 available 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: 

•		 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 provide information to educate the public about the needs 

of the species. 

Recovery Priority Number: 7 

Elkhorn and staghorn corals should be assigned a recovery priority of seven, based on a 

moderate magnitude of threat, low-moderate recovery potential, and the potential for economic 

conflict. 

144
 
 

 

 

 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

MARINE MAMMAL RECOVERY 

Seals and Sea Lions 

Caribbean Monk Seal (Monachus tropicalis) 

Date Listed: March 11, 1967 

Legal Status: Endangered 

Recovery Plan Status: 

No recovery plan exists for the Caribbean monk seal. 

Species Status: 

This species is presumed extinct. Historically, the Caribbean monk seal ranged throughout the 

Caribbean region, but population numbers were greatly reduced by sealers in the 1800s. This 

species has been known to occur in Florida, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands; however, 

no known populations currently exist in the wild. There have been no confirmed sightings since 

1952, despite extensive surveys. 

Threats and Impacts: 

A significant factor in the reduction of Caribbean monk seal numbers was overharvesting by 

sealers in the 1800s. It is possible that disturbance of breeding areas by humans may have also 

played a role. Pups’ tame behavior may have increased vulnerability to harvesting. 

Conservation Actions: 

No conservation actions were conducted during 2004–2006. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

Because this species is presumed extirpated or extinct, no priority recovery actions are needed at 

this time. 

Recovery Priority Number: 12 

Because this species is likely extirpated throughout its range, the recovery priority number for 

the Caribbean monk seal is 12. This represents a low magnitude of threat as a rare population, a 

low recovery potential, and the absence of conflict with economic activity. 

145
 
 

 

 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

Guadalupe Fur Seal (Arctocephalus townsendi) 

Date Listed: December 16, 1985 

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, 

they were not seen again until 1954. Guadalupe fur seals pup and breed mainly at Isla 

Guadalupe, Mexico. 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, Mexico. 

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 were made at other times of the year. 

Documented seal counts in the literature generally provide 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 is present at the rookery, were used to 

examine population growth. These data indicate 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. 

Threats and Impacts: 

Drift and set gillnet fisheries may cause incidental mortality of Guadalupe fur seals in Mexico 

and the United States. 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 mortalities 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. 

Guadalupe fur seals have undergone an extreme genetic bottleneck. This reduction in genetic 

diversity may influence further population expansion. Increasing levels of anthropogenic noise 

in the oceans may also be a concern for Guadalupe fur seals. 

146
 
 

 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

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 

the 2004–2006 timeframe. 

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, and the absence of significant conflict with 

economic projects. 

147
 
 

 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

Hawaiian Monk Seal (Monachus schauinslandi) 

Date Listed: November 23, 1976 

Legal Status: Endangered 

Recovery Plan Status: 

The first Recovery Plan for the Hawaiian Monk Seal was completed in 1983. A revised draft 

was released on November 28, 2006 (71 FR 68801). The public comment period for the plan 

began on that date and closed on January 29, 2007. 

Species Status: 

The current population of Hawaiian monk seals is approximately 1,247 individuals, which is 

assumed to be well below its optimum sustainable population. The majority of the population 

occurs in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI). The total abundance estimate of six 

NWHI subpopulations in 2005 was 1,072 seals (including 163 pups) (Figure 10). The six 

subpopulations exhibit differing trends, most likely reflecting varying factors influencing 

population growth at each site. The species is found in lower numbers in the Main Hawaiian 

Islands (MHI) where population numbers and range both appear to be expanding. The current 

best minimum abundance estimate for the MHI is 77. Births have been documented on most of 

the major islands and annual births in the MHI are believed to have increased since the mid1990s. Monk seals also occur at Necker and Nihoa Islands, where the mean (±SD) of all counts 

(excluding pups) conducted between 2001 and 2005 was 14.4 (±4.3) at Necker Island, and 17.7 

(±8.3) at Nihoa Island. Estimated Abundance 

1500 

1400 

1300 

1200 

1100 

1000 

900 

1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 

Year 

Figure 10. Estimated abundance of Hawaiian monk seals at the six main NWHI 

subpopulations. Error bars indicate ± 2 se (or known minimum abundance). 

148
 
 

 

 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

Threats and Impacts: 

Food Limitation – A critical threat to population growth in the NWHI is food limitation. Low 

juvenile survival, in part due to food limitation, has been evident at all NWHI subpopulations. 

Juvenile survival has declined most dramatically at French Frigate Shoals, with significantly 

smaller pup and juvenile sizes, consistent with signs of food limitation. This situation contrasts 

with the MHI, where pups tend to wean much larger than in the NWHI and where thin animals 

are rarely observed. Because most of the monk seal population occurs in the NWHI, this threat 

is of highest concern. 

Marine Debris/Entanglement – 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 the NWHI. This is a serious concern because the number of 

monk seals found entangled is not decreasing nor has there been a reduction in the accumulation 

rates of marine debris in the NWHI. 

Shark Predation – There has been a significant increase in shark predation on monk seal pups 

born at French Frigate Shoals, where shark related injury and mortality of pre-weaned pups have 

been conspicuously higher than at other sites. Based on field observations, shark predation may 

also be compromising recovery at Midway and Kure. 

Infectious diseases – Monk seal deaths in the NWHI and the MHI have led to concern about the 

presence of pathogens. The lack of antibodies in monk seals to various viruses makes them 

extremely vulnerable to infection from pathogens that they have not previously encountered, 

such as leptospirosis, toxoplasmosis, and West Nile virus, a pathogen that has not yet been 

identified in Hawaii but is present in 47 other states. 

Habitat Loss – The loss of terrestrial habitat is a significant issue of concern in the NWHI, 

especially habitat loss due to environmental factors such as storms and sea level rise. Some 

habitat loss (e.g., the subsidence of Whaleskate Island at French Frigate Shoals) has already been 

observed. With the increased number of pups born in the MHI, there is the potential for human 

disturbance at popular beaches. 

Fishery Interactions – Interactions with fisheries have been documented for Hawaiian monk 

seals, including interactions with active fishing gear, consumption of fishing discards, and 

entanglement in derelict fishery debris. Hawaiian monk seals in the MHI have been observed 

with embedded hooks from recreational fishing, particularly the nearshore ulua fishery, and seal 

have been found entangled in gillnets. 

Male Aggression – During the 1980s and early 1990s, the primary identified cause of adult and 

juvenile female mortality affecting the recovery potential in the monk seal population was injury 

and death caused by multiple male aggression, especially at Laysan and Lisianski Islands. 

Individual males have attacked weaned pups of both sexes. 

Human Interaction – Monk seals are generally intolerant of human interaction, and this type of 

disturbance has lead to abandonment of haulout sites. However, monk seals have been pupping 

on populated MHI beaches, presenting major management challenges. 

149
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

Biotoxins – In 1978, a significant number of Hawaiian monk seals died on Laysan Island, and 

high levels of ciguatoxin and maitotoxin were detected in the livers of two seals. Subsequent 

satellite remote sensing in Hawaiian monk seal habitat has indicated the potential impact for 

dangerous algal blooms which could contain harmful toxins. 

Vessel groundings – Monk seals may be injured or killed by vessel groundings that release 

hazardous materials (including oil or fuel), rotting bait, lost gear that could entangle seals, and 

human disturbance after the grounding incident. Vessel groundings that damage coral reef 

communities may lead to outbreaks of ciguatera, which may then accumulate in monk seal prey. 

Contaminants – Hawaiian monk seals are exposed to various contaminants, including 

organochlorines such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). The effects of these compounds on 

monk seals are not known. The levels observed in monk seals are not elevated when compared 

with other North Pacific pinnipeds. 

Climate and Oceanographic Conditions – Changes in climate and oceanographic conditions may 

affect monk seals by changing the availability of their prey, and may result in changes in the 

number or distribution of monk seal predators. A recent publication demonstrated that sea-level 

rise may significantly impact monk seals in the NWHI by reducing available terrestrial habitat 

for monk seals, especially in the low-lying NWHI. Further research has been proposed to better 

characterize the threat of habitat loss with improved mapping and modeling techniques and to 

explore mitigation measures. 

Conservation Actions: 

Although numerous conservation efforts over the past several decades have not halted the 

decline in monk seal population numbers, these efforts have slowed the decline, which in turn 

has provided more time to recover the species. The following conservation actions were 

undertaken for Hawaiian monk seal recovery in 2004–2006: 

•		 In September 2005, Hawaii designated the NWHI as a state refuge, eliminating all 

commercial and recreational fishing in state waters, which extend 3 nautical miles from 

shore. On June 15, 2006, the NWHI Marine National Monument (71 FR 51134, August 

29, 2006) was established by Presidential Proclamation 8031. The boundary of the 

Monument includes approximately 140,000 square miles of emergent and submerged 

lands and waters of the NWHI, providing the highest form of national, marine 

environmental protection for the Hawaiian monk seals’ NWHI marine habitat. 

Protections include fishing prohibitions and regulations, with commercial fishing within 

the Monument being phased-out over the ensuing five years. 

•		 Planning and training has been undertaken for high risk events such as morbillivirus 

outbreak, leptospirosis infections, oil spills, and biotoxin exposure. 

•		 Shark predation mitigation – In response to pup woundings or disappearances, pups have 

been translocated from Trig Island to other, low risk sites as soon as possible after 

weaning. Shark removal operations have also been initiated. 

•		 The Midway Atoll Captive Care Program has been providing nutritional support for 

undersized female juvenile seals in the field. 

•		 Human impact mitigation – Pupping sites in popular areas of human activity have been 

monitored to minimize human impact, primarily through the training and use of 

150
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

volunteers, and pups have been successfully translocated to avoid human disturbance and 

other risk associated with human activities. 

•		 Mitigation of entanglement – Hawaiian monk seal researchers regularly disentangle seals 

caught in marine debris, especially in the NWHI, thereby reducing mortality to individual 

seals. A multi-agency Marine Debris Removal Program removed 18 tons of derelict 

fishing gear from around the U.S. Pacific Islands in 2006, and has removed 560 metric 

tons since 1999. In December 2006, Congress passed and the President signed into law a 

bill to establish programs within NOAA and the U.S. Coast Guard to help identify, 

determine sources of, assess, reduce, and prevent marine debris and its adverse impacts 

on the marine environment, in coordination with non-federal entities (Public Law 109­

449). 

•		 State of Hawaii Section 6 Agreement – On August 29, 2006, NMFS entered into a 

cooperative agreement under section 6 of the ESA with the State of Hawaii Department 

of Land and Natural Resources to conserve the Hawaiian monk seal, humpback whale, 

green sea turtle, and hawksbill sea turtle. After completing this agreement, the State 

submitted an application under the Protected Species Cooperative Conservation grant 

program for funding to support conservation activities for these species. The State of 

Hawaii is now the 12th state to enter into a cooperative agreement with NMFS under 

section 6 of the ESA. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

•		 Improve the survivorship of females, particularly juveniles, in subpopulations of the NWHI 

by: 

a.	 maintaining and enhancing existing protection and conservation of habitat and prey 

base, 

b.	 targeting research to better understand the factors that result in poor juvenile survival, 

c.	 intervening where appropriate to ensure higher survival of juvenile and adult females, 

and 

d.	 continuing actions to protect females from individual and multiple male aggression 

and to prevent excessive shark predation. 

•		 Maintain or expand existing field efforts. The extensive field presence that has been 

maintained during the breeding season in the NWHI is critical not just to the research efforts, 

but also to the active management and conservation of Hawaiian monk seal sub-populations 

in these areas. 

•		 Ensure the continued natural recovery of the Hawaiian monk seal in the MHI. This must 

include better coordination of activities between and among all parties interested in and 

affected by the increased population of monk seals in the MHI. 

•		 Reduce the probability of the inadvertent introduction of infectious diseases into the 

Hawaiian monk seal population. 

Recovery Priority Number: 1 

The Hawaiian monk seal has a recovery priority number of one, based on criteria in the 

Recovery Priority Guidelines (55 FR 24296, June 15, 1990), that describes a high magnitude of 

threat, high recovery potential, and the potential for economic conflict while implementing 

recovery actions. The magnitude of threat is considered to be high based on the rapid population 

decline that has persisted for over 20 years. Although our understanding of the most serious 

151
 
 

 

 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

threat of food limitation 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. One 

such example is that the species’ current core habitat in the NWHI is well-protected, and if 

foraging conditions improve, then 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 appropriate management actions were in 

place. Finally, potential economic conflict exists in the MHI with fishery interactions, shoreline 

developments, increased tourism, aquaculture projects, and boat strikes, especially if an interisland, high-speed ferry is introduced. 

152
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

Steller Sea Lion (Eumetopias jubatus) – Eastern and Western DPSs 

Date Listed: 

April 10, 1990 (listed as one threatened species) 

May 5, 1997 (split into eastern and western DPSs at Cape Suckling, Alaska [144o

W longitude] 

and reclassified) 

Legal Status: 

Endangered (Western DPS) 

Threatened (Eastern DPS) 

Recovery Plan Status: 

A draft recovery plan for both populations of Steller sea lion was completed in May 2006. 

Species Status: 

The Steller sea lion was listed as a threatened species under the ESA on April 5, 1990, due to 

substantial declines in the western portion of the range. In contrast, the eastern portion of the 

range (in southeastern Alaska and Canada) was increasing at 3 percent per year. Critical habitat 

was designated on August 27, 1993, based on the location of terrestrial rookery and haulout sites, 

spatial extent of foraging trips, and availability of prey items. In 1997, the Steller sea lion 

population was split into a western DPS and an eastern DPS based on demographic and genetic 

dissimilarities. Due to the persistent decline, the western DPS was reclassified as endangered, 

while the increasing eastern DPS remained classified as threatened. 

Through the 1990s, the western DPS continued to decline at about 5 percent per year. However, 

the western population has shown an increase of approximately 3 percent per year between 2000 

and 2004. This was the first recorded increase in the population since the 1970s. Based on 

recent counts, the western DPS is currently about 44,800 animals and may be increasing due to 

higher juvenile and adult survival. However, it remains unclear whether Steller sea lion 

reproduction has also improved and whether the observed 3 percent annual population growth 

will continue. In general, the western Aleutian Islands area continues to decline while the core 

of the range (central and eastern Aleutian Islands and western Gulf of Alaska) appears to be 

stable. 

The threatened eastern DPS is currently between 45,000 and 51,000 animals, and has been 

increasing at 3 percent per year for nearly 30 years. 

Threats and Impacts: 

Minor threats to the western DPS include: (1) Alaska Native subsistence harvest, (2) illegal 

shooting, (3) entanglement in marine debris, (4) disease, and (5) disturbance from vessel traffic 

and scientific research. Although much has been learned about Steller sea lions and the North 

Pacific ecosystem, considerable uncertainty remains about the magnitude and likelihood of the 

following potential threats to recovery of the western DPS (relative impacts in parenthesis): 

competition with fisheries (potentially high), environmental variability (potentially high), killer 

whale predation (potentially high), incidental take by fisheries (medium), and toxic substances 

(medium). 

153
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

In contrast, no threats have been identified for the eastern DPS. Although several factors 

affecting the western DPS also affect the eastern DPS, these impacts do not appear to be limiting 

recovery given the long term sustained growth of the population. 

Conservation Actions: 

Much of the conservation effort has been focused on eliminating the most direct, and likely, 

causes of the decline (e.g., shooting and incidental take). These efforts include the following: 

•	 Substantial reduction in disturbance of important rookeries and haulouts. 

•	 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 provide 

management with options for recovery actions. 

•	 Substantial reduction in the potential for competitive interactions between commercial 

fisheries for pollock, Atka mackerel, and Pacific cod in Alaska (rookeries are protected 

by fishery closures and no-transit zones, no pollock fishing is allowed within 10–20 

nautical miles of 75 haulouts, and fishing is controlled in part of the sea lion critical 

habitat). 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

Priorities for the recovery of the Steller sea lion continue to be: (1) conducting an annual, rangewide population census to monitor population trends; (2) assessing survival and reproductive 

rates through long-term marking programs of the western and eastern DPSs for development of 

population growth models; and (3) assessing the spatial and temporal distribution and availability 

of prey throughout the range. Additional recovery actions highlighted in the draft revised 

recovery plan include: (1) implement an adaptive management plan; (2) maintain fishery 

conservation measures; and (3) reduce the uncertainty around the magnitude of the key threats 

(fisheries, killer whale predation, and environmental change). 

Recovery Priority Number: 7 (western DPS); 10 (eastern DPS) 

The recovery priority number for the western DPS of Steller sea lion is seven, due to a moderate 

magnitude of threat, a moderate recovery potential, and the presence of conflict activity. 

The recovery priority number for the eastern DPS of Steller sea lion is 10, due to a low 

magnitude of threat, high recovery potential, and no significant conflict with economic activity 

presenting a risk to recovery. 

154
 
 

 

 

 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

Whales 

Blue Whale (Balaenoptera musculus) 

Date Listed: June 2, 1970 

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, North Pacific, and Southern Hemisphere. Worldwide, blue whales were significantly 

depleted by commercial whaling activities. In the Southern Hemisphere, pre-exploitation 

population estimates range from 150,000 to 210,000 whales; recent abundance estimates place 

the population size from 400 to 1,400 whales. In the North Pacific, pre-exploitation population 

size is speculated to be approximately 4,900 blue whales and the current population estimate is a 

minimum of 3,300 blue whales. In the North Atlantic, estimates for the entire basin are 

considered unreliable, but range from 1,100 to 1,500 blue whales pre-exploitation population 

size, and 100 to 555 whales for current population size.15 

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 current minimum population estimate for the 

western North Atlantic stock is 308 whales. There are insufficient data to determine a population 

trend for this stock. 

Blue whale population structure in the North Pacific remains uncertain, but two stocks are 

recognized within U.S. waters: the Hawaiian and the eastern North Pacific (formerly 

California/Mexico) stocks. With the exception of the blue whale population that summers off 

California, there are no reliable estimates of blue whale abundance in the North Pacific Ocean. 

In Hawaii, blue whales are considered to be extremely rare. No data are available to provide a 

minimum population estimate or to determine a population trend for the Hawaiian 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 current minimum population 

estimate for this stock is 1,744 whales; it is unclear whether the population is increasing, 

decreasing, or stable.16 

15 International Whaling Commission statistics – www.iwcoffice.orgs. 16 Carretta, J.V., K.A. Forney, M.M. Muto, J. Barlow, J. Baker, B. Hanson, and M.S. Lowry. 2006. U.S. Pacific 

Marine Mammal Stock Assessments: 2006. NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-388. 

155
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

Threats and Impacts: 

A primary threat to blue whales is mortality and serious injury caused by ship strikes. In the 

North Atlantic 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 ship strike is unknown. Ship strikes are also implicated in the deaths of four blue whales off 

California since 1980. The detected blue whale mortality from ship strikes off California from 

1991–1995 averaged 0.2 per year. Further mortalities of this nature probably have occurred 

without being reported. Several of the whales photo-identified off California had large gashes on 

the dorsal body surface, thought to be caused by collisions with vessels. 

Other threats and impacts to blue whales include incidental take in fisheries, fishing gear 

entanglement, and anthropogenic noise. Off California and Mexico, there is a potential for 

bycatch of blue whales in drift gillnet fisheries for swordfish and sharks. Observer coverage in 

such fisheries was relatively low in the past but increased to 10–18 percent during 1991–1995. 

In the observed fisheries, no blue whale mortalities were documented; however, entanglement 

rates may be underestimated, as blue whales may break through or carry away fishing gear, 

perhaps suffering unrecorded subsequent mortalities. While impacts are unknown, the 

increasing levels of anthropogenic noise in the oceans may be an additional concern for blue 

whales. 

Conservation Actions: 

Conservation actions for the blue whale during 2004–2006 are on-going, and include the 

following: 

•		 Monitoring the status of the California/Oregon/Washington stock of blue whales via 

shipboard surveys, conducted every 3 years with Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA) funding. 

•		 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). 

•		 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). 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: Continue ongoing recovery actions listed above. 

Recovery Priority Number: 7 

This priority number ranking reflects a moderate magnitude of threat, low to moderate recovery 

potential, and the presence of conflict. 

156
 
 

 

 

 

 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

Bowhead Whale (Balaena mysticetus) 

Date listed: June 2, 1970 

Legal status: Endangered 

Recovery Plan status: 

No recovery plan has been completed for the bowhead whale. 

Species status: 

Bowhead whales are distributed in seasonally ice-covered waters of the Arctic and near Arctic, 

with five stocks currently recognized by the International Whaling Commission. Four small 

stocks occur in the Sea of Okhotsk, Davis Strait, Hudson Bay, and the offshore waters of 

Spitsbergen; these small bowhead stocks are comprised of only a few tens to a few hundreds 

of individuals. The only stock found within U.S. waters is the western Arctic stock, which 

comprises the largest population of this species. The western Arctic stock migrates annually 

from wintering areas in the northern Bering Sea, through the Chukchi Sea in the spring, and to 

the Beaufort Sea, where it spends much of the summer before returning to the Bering Sea in the 

fall. 

The most current abundance estimate for western Arctic bowhead whales (from ice-based counts 

in the spring of 2001) is 10,545 whales, and data indicated the population is increased at 3.4 

percent per year for the period 1978–2001. Pre-exploitation population levels are estimated at 

10,400 to 23,000 whales.17 A status review for this species will be conducted in 2007, with a 

possibility of changing the ESA listing status of bowhead whales. 

Threats and Impacts: 

Threats and impacts to the bowhead whale population include oil and gas exploration, 

development, and leasing within waters of the State of Alaska and on the Outer Continental 

Shelf. Most of the year, bowhead whales are closely associated with sea ice. During the 

summer, this population occurs in relatively ice-free waters in the southern Beaufort Sea – an 

area often exposed to industrial activity related to petroleum exploration and extraction. 

Increasing oil and gas development in the Arctic will lead to an increased risk of various forms 

of pollution to bowhead whale habitat, including oil spills, toxic and nontoxic waste, and noise 

due to higher levels of traffic as well as exploration and drilling operations. However, the area 

of disturbance is localized. Since the western Arctic bowhead whale population is approaching 

its pre-exploitation population size and has been increasing at a roughly constant rate for over 20 

years, the impacts of the oil and gas industry on individual survival and reproduction are likely to 

be minor. 

Another element of concern is the potential for climate change, which will probably affect high 

northern latitudes more than other locations. Evidence gathered over the past 10–15 years 

indicates a shift in regional weather patterns in the Arctic region. Ice-associated animals, such as 

17 Carretta, J.V., K.A. Forney, M.M. Muto, J. Barlow, J. Baker, B. Hanson, and M.S. Lowry. 2006. U.S. Pacific 

Marine Mammal Stock Assessments: 2006. NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-388. 

157
 
 

 

 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

the bowhead whale, may be sensitive to changes in Arctic weather, sea-surface temperatures, ice 

extent, and associated effects on prey availability. There are insufficient data to make reliable 

predictions of the effects of any Arctic climate change on bowhead whales. 

A minor additional concern for bowhead whales is the possibility of fishing gear interactions and 

entanglements. The latest stock assessment report for bowhead whales documents 11 cases of 

rope or net entanglement since 1978, through the documentation of entanglement scars and/or 

rope on animals taken during subsistence hunts. Re-examination of bowhead harvest records 

indicates that this number might be higher. Two of these reported cases involved bowhead 

whale entanglement in crab pot gear, one in 1993 and one in 1999; the average rate of 

entanglement in crab pot gear for 1999–2003 is 0.2. 

Conservation Actions: 

Conservation actions for the bowhead whale during 2004–2006 include the following: 

•		 Time and area restrictions for indirect take of whales due to commercial activities. 

•		 Mitigation of oil and gas activities through section 7 consultations under the ESA. 

•		 Mitigation of oil and gas activities under section 101(a)(5) of the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act (MMPA). 

•		 International Whaling Commission (IWC) actions. 

•		 Section 119 co-management agreements under the MMPA. 

In addition, several papers on bowhead whale stock structure were presented at the 2004 IWC 

Scientific Committee (IWC SC) Meeting, from which a team of United States researchers 

developed a provisional plan for studying the stock structure of bowhead whales. This 

provisional plan underwent review at a workshop hosted by the NMFS Alaska Fisheries Science 

Center, and a summary report was submitted to the Bowhead-Right-Gray Subcommittee at the 

2005 IWC SC Meeting. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

Continue current conservation actions. 

Recovery Priority Number: 9 

This priority number reflects a low magnitude of threat (due to increasing population numbers), 

high recovery potential, and presence of conflict. 

158
 
 

 

 

 

 

 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

Fin Whale (Balaenoptera physalus) 

Date Listed: June 2, 1970 

Legal Status: Endangered 

Recovery Plan Status: 

A draft recovery plan for the fin whale was completed in June 2006. 

Species Status: 

Fin whales occur in oceans of both Northern and Southern Hemispheres between 20–75o N and S 

latitudes. Worldwide, fin whales were severely depleted by commercial whaling activities. The 

pre-exploitation abundance of fin whales in the Southern Hemisphere is estimated at 400,000 

whales and the most current population estimate (1979) for fin whales in the southern oceans is 

85,200 whales. In the North Pacific, the total pre-exploitation population size of fin whales is 

estimated at 42,000 to 45,000 whales. The most recent abundance estimate (early 1970s) for fin 

whales in the entire North Pacific basin is between 14,620 and 18,630 whales. In the North 

Atlantic, the pre-exploitation population size for fin whales is estimated at 30,000 to 50,000 

whales; the current estimate of fin whale abundance for the entire North Atlantic is 30,000 

whales, with a 95 percent confidence limit of 23,000 to 39,000 whales.18 

The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) stock assessment reports for the fin whale 

recognize one stock of fin whales in the U.S. North Atlantic Ocean: the western North Atlantic 

stock and three stocks of fin whales in the U.S. North Pacific: the California/Oregon/ 

Washington stock, the Hawaii stock, and the Alaska/Northeast Pacific stock. 

Threats and Impacts: 

Fin whales from the western North Atlantic stock are injured and killed at least occasionally by 

inshore fishing gear (e.g., gillnets) off eastern Canada and the U.S., and are occasionally injured 

or killed by ship strikes off the U.S. East Coast. NMFS’ records on this stock from 1999 through 

2003 yield an average of 1.4 human-caused mortalities per year – 0.4 per year resulting from 

fishery interactions or entanglements (0.2 in U.S. waters, 0.2 in Canadian waters), and 1.0 due to 

collisions with vessels (U.S. waters). Fin whales are also among the main attractions of whale 

watching enterprises in eastern Canada and the northeastern U.S. and, as a result, these whales 

are regularly subjected to close and persistent following by vessels. 

Interaction with commercial fisheries and ship strikes are also threats to the Northeast Pacific 

stock. One fin whale mortality in 1999 was attributed to the Gulf of Alaska pollock trawl 

fishery, leading to an estimate of three mortalities in 1999 and an average of 0.6 mortalities over 

the 1999–2003 time period. Ship strikes have been implicated in the deaths of one fin whale in 

1997 and one in 2001. 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. 

The average observed annual mortality due to ship strikes is 0.4 fin whales per year for the 

period 1997–2001. 

18 International Whaling Commission statistics – www.iwcoffice.org 

159
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

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 measures concerning fishing gear interactions, see the Northern 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 Marine Mammal Protection 

Act. NOAA, the National Ocean Service, and the U.S. Coast Guard submitted a proposal to the 

International Maritime Organization to shift the Boston Traffic Separation Scheme to reduce the 

overlap between sightings of large whales, including fin whales, and vessel traffic by 80%. 

There are no conservation actions for the Hawaii and Alaska/Northeast Pacific stocks of fin 

whales. 

Conservation actions for the California/Oregon/Washington stock of fin whales from 2004-2006 

are on-going, and include the following: 

•		 Monitoring the status of the California/Oregon/Washington stock of fin whales via shipboard surveys, which are conducted every 3 years with MMPA funding. 

•		 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). 

•		 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). 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

Continue ongoing conservation actions listed above. Further priority recovery actions will be 

specified in the recovery plan. 

Recovery Priority Number: 7 

This priority number reflects a moderate degree of threat, low to moderate recovery potential, 

and the presence of conflict with economic activities. 

160
 
 

 

 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) 

Date Listed: June 2, 1970 

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 Southern Hemisphere, humpback whale abundance prior to commercial exploitation is 

estimated at 100,000 whales.19 Recent abundance estimates for the humpback whale south of 

60oS in summer (i.e., incomplete) range from 5,900 to 16,800 whales.20 No current or historical 

abundance estimates are available for humpbacks in the Indian Ocean. In the entire North 

Pacific Ocean prior to 1905, it is estimated that there were 15,000 humpback whales basin-wide. 

In 1966, after heavy commercial exploitation, humpback abundance was estimated at 1,000 to 

1,200 whales, although it is unclear if estimates were for the entire North Pacific or just the 

eastern North Pacific. There are no reliable estimates for current humpback whale abundance in 

the entire North Pacific. For the North Atlantic, the best available estimate is 11,570 whales. 

Four stocks of humpback whales are recognized in U.S. waters: the Gulf of Maine stock in the 

Atlantic Ocean, and the western North Pacific, central North Pacific, and eastern North Pacific 

stocks in the Pacific Ocean. 

Estimating abundance for the Gulf of Maine stock has proved problematic. Several approaches 

have been investigated, including mark-recapture estimates, minimum population size, and linetransect estimates. The best estimate of abundance for Gulf of Maine humpback whales provides 

a minimum population estimate of 647 humpback whales, with these data suggesting that the 

Gulf of Maine humpback whale stock is steadily increasing in size. 

The western North Pacific stock of humpback whales is estimated at 394 animals, based on data 

collected by nine independent research groups and photographs taken between 1991 and 1993. 

More recent photo-identification effort has occurred, but because of uncertainty in assigning 

animals to a stock, this information was not used to calculate revised abundance estimates. No 

population trend has been calculated for this stock. 

The central North Pacific stock of humpback whales is estimated at 4,005 individuals, based on 

data collected by nine independent research groups and photographs taken between 1991 and 

1993. Data support an increasing population size for the entire central stock; however, the 

limited nature of the data does not support a trend estimate at this time. 

19 Gambell, R. 1976. World whale stocks. Mammal Rev. 6(1):41-53 

20 International Whaling Commission statistics – www.iwcoffice.org 

161
 
 

 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

The minimum population estimate for the eastern North Pacific humpback whale stock is 681 

individuals. Mark-recapture population estimates increased steadily from the period 1988–1990 

to the period 1997–1998, at about 8 percent per year. The stock appears to have decreased in 

abundance between 1998 and 1999, but the most recent mark-recapture estimate shows the 

eastern North Pacific stock appears to be increasing in abundance. 

Threats and Impacts: 

One threat to humpback whales is entanglement in commercial fishing gear. Due to their large 

size, humpback whales are capable of becoming entangled and swimming away with parts of the 

fixed fishing gear which can cause the animal to pick up more gear. From 1999 through 2003, 

seven mortalities and 12 serious injuries to North Atlantic humpback whales were attributed to 

entanglement. NMFS has observed the incidental take of humpback whales in the 

California/Oregon swordfish/thresher shark drift gillnet fishery and suspects humpback whales 

are also taken in drift gillnet fisheries off Baja California, but detailed information regarding 

takes in these fisheries is not available. In the North Pacific, humpback whales migrate annually 

from Hawaii to northern British Columbia, Southeast Alaska and Prince William Sound west to 

Kodiak, and therefore the potential exists for them to become entangled in gear from several 

fisheries and possibly drag an extensive amount of gear. Longline gear, crab pots, and other 

non-fishery-related lines have been implicated in humpback whale entanglements in Hawaii. 

Another threat to humpback whales is mortality or serious injury from ship strikes. From 1999 

through 2003, six humpback whale mortalities (including three from the Gulf of Maine stock) 

were attributed to collisions with vessels. 

Interaction with whale watching vessels is also a threat to humpback whales. The Gulf of Maine 

stock of humpback whales is the focus of whale watching efforts in New England from the late 

spring to early fall in the Gulf of Maine, 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 whale watching industry that exerts pressure in localized 

geographic areas of southeast Alaska. 

Habitat loss and degradation may also impact humpback whales. Landfills, harbors, shipping 

channels, fisheries, and aquaculture (fish farms) may all occupy or destroy areas needed by 

humpbacks for resting and breeding. Recreational use of marine areas, including resort 

development and increased boat traffic (thrill craft), may displace whales that would normally 

use an area. The growth of the whale watching industry is a concern as preferred habitats may 

be abandoned if disturbance levels are too high. In Hawaii, acoustic impacts from vessel 

operation, oceanographic research using active sonar, and military operations are also of 

increasing concern. 

162
 
 

 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

Conservation Actions: 

The following section describes conservation actions undertaken during 2004–2006 for the 

recovery of humpback whales: 

Reduction of incidental take 

•	 For conservation measures concerning fishing gear interactions in the North Atlantic, see 

the Northern Right Whale section of this report. North Atlantic right, humpback, and fin 

whales are all managed under the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan. 

•	 NMFS implements 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, with Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) funding. 

•	 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 is 

conducting training of personnel, acquiring specialized equipment for islands with 

histories of events, and responding to all calls to NOAA concerning humpback whales in 

distress. 

•	 The Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council 

and its partners convened a Ship Strike Mitigation Meeting with resource managers, 

scientists, and representatives of the maritime community to assess ship strike risks in 

Hawaii and to identify possible actions to reduce the occurrence of vessel/whale 

collisions. 

Education and outreach 

•	 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. 

•	 Installing ship strike mitigation signage (boater safety signs) to remind Hawaii’s ocean 

users to practice safe boating around whales. 

Surveys and research 

•	 NMFS monitors the status of the eastern North Pacific stock via shipboard surveys, 

which are conducted every 3 years, and mark-recapture studies conducted annually 

(MMPA funding). 

•	 NMFS places 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). 

•	 The SPLASH project (structure, levels of abundance, and status of humpbacks) is an 

international cooperative research effort to understand the population structure of 

humpback whales across the entire North Pacific. This project took place from 2004­

2006, and involved research conducted in many different regions frequented by the North 

Pacific stocks of humpback whales. Preliminary results of the research are expected to 

be published late in 2007. 

163
 
 

 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

•	 The Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary (HIHWNMS) 

released the results of a research project describing the distribution and composition of 

humpbacks off the west coast of the Big Island of Hawaii.21 

•	 The HIHWNMS staff has continued to build partnerships to conduct marine mammal 

surveys, concentrating on humpback whales, in the waters surrounding American Samoa. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

A status review for the species needs to be conducted once research results are available. 

NMFS will continue its efforts to address human-caused mortality and serious injury of
 

humpback whales associated with 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 

already been done concerning gear modifications to address entanglement risks associated with 

the groundline of pot/trap 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 

behavior once whales become entangled. Additional studies must also be conducted to evaluate 

the effectiveness of the right whale measures on humpback entanglements. 

Recovery actions specific to the western North Pacific stock have a low priority until further 

research is done. No priority recovery actions have been officially identified specific to the 

central North Pacific stock; however, the issue of entanglement continues to be a local priority 

for education and mitigation. 

Recovery Priority Number: 3 

The species recovery priority reflects a high magnitude of threat, a medium recovery potential 

(because levels of fishing gear and vessel interactions appear to be increasing), and the presence 

of conflict (because restrictions on commercial fishing and shipping would potentially create a 

significant conflict). 

21 Trends in Relative Distribution, Megaptera novaeangliae, in Kawaihae Bay, Island of Hawaii 1988 – 2003. 

Researchers: C.M. Gabriele, S.H. Rickards, S.E. Yin, and A.S. Frankel. Affiliation: Hawaii Marine Mammal 

Consortium. 

164
 
 

 

 

 

 

 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

Northern Right Whale (Eubalaena glacialis) 

Date Listed: June 2, 1970 

Legal Status: Endangered 

Recovery Plan Status: 

A recovery plan for the North Atlantic right whale was completed in May 2005. A recovery plan 

addressing the North Pacific population of the northern right whale is currently under 

development, pending taxonomic and listing decisions.22 

Species Status: 

The pre-exploitation distribution of the northern right whale in the North Atlantic probably 

included coastal and continental shelf waters in temperate to subarctic latitudes. Postexploitation distribution is much more limited. It remains unclear whether the present North 

Atlantic right whale population abundance is static or in decline. In the eastern North Atlantic, 

the northern right whale population probably numbers only in the low tens of animals at best, 

and based on the rarity of sightings and the current distribution and migration patterns (which 

remain unknown), the eastern North Atlantic population is not considered a functioning extant 

unit and may be considered a “relict” population(s). In the western North Atlantic, the northern 

right whale minimum population estimate was 291 individuals in 1998, based on a census of 

individual whales identified using photo-identification techniques. However, because of 

heterogeneity of capture probabilities (relating to either distribution of individuals and/or of 

sighting effort), it is difficult to calculate an unbiased point estimate of abundance for this 

population; furthermore, measures of survival are considered to be more important than absolute 

abundance estimates. The size of the stock is considered extremely low relative to its estimated 

optimal sustainable population (OSP) level. 

Very little information exists on the northern right whale population in the North Pacific. The 

pre-exploitation size of this stock probably exceeded 11,000 animals, but whaling from 1835 to 

1971 severely reduced the population. The photographic recapture rate and preliminary genetic 

data from animal biopsies taken in 2004 suggest a very small population size. In the western 

North Pacific, the population is thought to be in the hundreds, but no reliable estimate is 

available. The size of both eastern and western North Pacific populations is extremely low 

relative to the OSP. 

22 Since the listing of the right whale in 1970, NMFS has interpreted right whale taxonomy as consisting of two 

separate species – northern right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) in the Northern Hemisphere, and southern right whale 

(Eubalaena australis) in the Southern Hemisphere – which was consistent with the view of most taxonomists at the 

time of listing. On April 10, 2003, NMFS published a final rule (68 FR 17560) that split the single species 

“northern right whale” (Eubalaena glacialis) into two separate species – the North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena 

glacialis) and the North Pacific right whale (Eubalaena japonica). However, NMFS has determined that this 

technical change was procedurally and substantively flawed, and on January 11, 2005 (70 FR 1830), published a 

final rule removing the technical revision and reinstating the designation of one endangered right whale species in 

the Northern Hemisphere – Eubalaena glacialis. NMFS has now completed it status review of the northern right 

whale, and proposed listings for both the North Pacific and North Atlantic right whale populations as separate 

endangered species on December 26, 2006 (NPRW, 71 FR 77694; NARW, 71 FR 77704). 

165
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

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. Other potential threats to this 

population are habitat degradation, noise, contaminants, military activities, and climate and 

ecosystem change. The total level of human-caused mortality and serious injury is unknown, but 

the estimate for 1999–2003 is a minimum of 2.6 per year, with reported incidental fishery 

interactions at 1.6 per year and ship strike records at 1.0 per year. Given that the potential 

biological removal rate is set at zero, any mortality or serious injury for this stock can be 

considered significant. 

In the North Atlantic from 1999 through 2003, five right whale mortalities were attributed to 

collisions with vessels. North Atlantic right whales are impacted by entanglement in commercial 

fishing gear, including trap/pot and gillnet gear. From 1999 through 2003, three mortalities and 

five serious injuries of North Atlantic right whales were attributed to entanglement. Due to their 

large size, right whales are capable of becoming entangled and swimming away with parts of the 

fixed fishing gear which can cause the animal to pick up more gear. In addition, it becomes 

difficult to determine exactly where an entanglement occurred and to describe the nature of the 

entanglement. 

The threats and impacts to right whales in the North Pacific are currently unknown because the 

distribution of these animals is not well understood. Entanglement in gear could be a threat; 

however, the extent of this problem is not well defined. 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 scars have been 

observed on some animals. Any mortality incidental to commercial fisheries would be 

considered significant. It is possible that right whales in the North Pacific are vulnerable to 

mortality from ship strikes and entanglements in fishing gear, as these are significant sources of 

right whale mortality in the North Atlantic. However, due to the rare occurrence of North Pacific 

right whales and their scattered distribution, it is impossible to assess the threat of ship strikes or 

entanglement to the North Pacific stock of right whales at this time. 

Conservation Actions: 

The following conservation actions were undertaken from 2004-2006 for the North Atlantic right 

whale: 

The NMFS Northeast Region (NER) has drafted a comprehensive management plan (the Atlantic 

Large Whale Take Reduction Plan) that addresses interactions between fisheries and the North 

Atlantic right whale population. The strategy identifies the shortfalls of NMFS’ management 

scheme and NER’s ongoing and future actions designed to rectify these shortfalls. The 

foundation of the strategy focuses on fishing regulations, gear research, outreach and education, 

enforcement, cooperative efforts with states, whale research, disentanglement, monitoring and 

evaluation, coordination with Canada, and critical habitat. The following activities undertaken 

by NER illustrate the steps taken by NMFS to reduce entanglement and serious injury as a result 

of entanglement: 

166
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

Education and outreach 

•		 Conducted dockside outreach meetings in Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New 

Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida. 

•		 Collaborated with fishing associations throughout the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic on 

Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan (ALWTRP) issues. 

•		 Provided Level 1 disentanglement training for fishermen, the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), 

and Marine Patrol. 

•		 Expanded weak link (gear designed to break if entangled) photo workbook. 

•		 Improved ALWTRP outreach by creating a Dynamic Area Management (DAM) Zone 

Outreach Supplement for each DAM zone. 

•		 Updated and expanded NER Right Whale Funding Opportunities website and provided 

presentations on the right whale funding programs at the New York Marine Endangered 

Species Workshop and annual meeting of the North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium. 

Incidental take reduction 

•		 Developed a comprehensive management plan that addresses interactions between 

fisheries and the North Atlantic right whale. 

•		 Conducted the NMFS Mid-Atlantic Gear Buyback and Recycling Program in January 

2006 with gear pick-up locations in New Jersey, Maryland, and Virginia for the 

collection of actively fished floating groundline from commercial trap/pot fishermen in 

exchange for a voucher to be used toward the purchase of sinking or neutrally buoyant 

groundline. Nearly 100,000 pounds of floating groundline was collected, totaling 

approximately 541 miles of floating groundline that was removed from the water column. 

•		 Provided earmarked funding of nearly $2 million to the Gulf of Maine Lobster 

Foundation for the administration and implementation of the Maine groundline exchange 

program for Maine lobster trap/pot fishermen. 

•		 Conducted investigations on gear removed from entangled whales. 

•		 Organized an enforcement effort in Massachusetts Bay in March 2006, using aerial and 

vessel resources to check for compliance with the ALWTRP. Two vessels were boarded 

(one lobster and one gillnet) and eight surface systems were checked for compliance. 

One warning and two violations were issued. 

•		 Continued coordination with Brunswick Naval Air Station to provide supplementary 

aerial survey coverage prior to ordnance exercises when NOAA resources were available 

and provide advance notification to the Navy for any Gulf of Maine DAMs that might 

overlap with Navy exercise areas. 

•		 Coordinated gear research with fishermen and placed load cells on lobster, gillnet, shark, 

black sea bass, and conch fisheries throughout the mid-Atlantic and Southeast regions. 

Ship strike coordination 

•		 Worked with the National Ocean Service (NOS) and the USCG to submit a proposal to 

the International Maritime Organization to shift the Boston Traffic Separation Scheme to 

achieve an 80 percent reduction in the overlap between whale sightings and vessel traffic. 

•		 Worked with the USCG and NOS to develop and chart recommended routes that route 

vessels through areas with fewer right whale sightings in Cape Cod Bay and the 

southeastern calving grounds. 

167
 
 

 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

•		 Developed a Ship Strike/Whale Avoidance web page, and maintained and expanded the 

Ship Strike/Whale Avoidance distribution list. 

•		 Added speed recommendation of 10–12 knots to right whale information outlets such as 

NOAA Weather Radio, U.S. Coast Pilots, and Sighting Advisory System emails and 

faxes. 

•		 Worked with Holland America Line to create an “Avoiding Whale Strikes” training 

program for the cruise industry, which has been distributed to cruise lines worldwide 

through the International Council of Cruise Lines. 

•		 Investigated and researched possible ship strikes of right whales in the Great South 

Channel. 

Grant Programs 

•		 Conducted three annual competitions (2004-2006) of the NER Right Whale Funding 

Programs for gear research and testing. 

•		 Conducted three annual competitions (2004-2006) of the NER Atlantic Coast States 

Cooperative Planning for Right Whale Recovery Program, a cooperative conservation 

program to enhance state and federal management efforts in the recovery of right whales. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

For right whales in the western North Atlantic, NMFS will continue its efforts to address humancaused mortality and serious injury of right whales associated with gear and vessel interactions. 

Additional work is required to complete the development and implementation of the right whale 

Ship Strike Strategy. Although substantial work has already been conducted concerning gear 

modifications to address entanglement risks associated with the groundline of pot/trap gear, 

additional work is needed to better understand the entanglement risk regarding the endlines 

(buoy lines) of fixed gear, and to better understand right whale behavior once whales become 

entangled. 

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. 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 the 

recovery plan. 

Recovery Priority Number: 1 

The species recovery priority is based on three criteria. The first criterion is the magnitude of 

threat, which is high due to extremely low population numbers and continuing threats to 

recovery. The second criterion is recovery potential: the main sources of right whale mortalities 

and serious injuries, particularly in the North Atlantic—fishing gear and vessel interactions—are 

human-induced and the potential to address these issues is high. The third criterion is conflict: 

any regulatory action taken would likely involve restrictions on commercial fishing and shipping 

and the economic impacts would potentially create significant conflict. 

168
 
 

 

 

 

 

 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

Sei Whale (Balaenoptera borealis) 

Date Listed: June 2, 1970 

Legal Status: Endangered 

Recovery Plan Status: 

No recovery plan currently exists for the sei whale. 

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. In the Southern Hemisphere, it is estimated that between 

63,000 and 65,000 sei whales existed prior to commercial exploitation.23 Current estimates for 

sei whale abundance in the southern oceans range from 9,718 to 12,000 whales.24 In the North 

Pacific, the pre-exploitation population estimate for sei whales is 42,000 whales and the most 

current population estimate for sei whales in the entire North Pacific (from 1977) is 9,110 

whales.25 In the entire North Atlantic, information is not available on the pre-exploitation 

population size of sei whales and there are insufficient data to determine population size or trend 

for North Atlantic sei whales at this time. 

The stock identity of sei whales in the North Atlantic poses a major research challenge; however, 

NMFS provisionally recognizes one stock in U.S. waters – the Nova Scotia stock, which is found 

in continental shelf waters of the northeastern U.S. and ranges northeast to waters south of 

Newfoundland. In the North Pacific, there is one stock of sei whales in U.S. waters – the eastern 

North Pacific stock, found east of 180° W longitude. 

Threats and Impacts: 

Sei whales in the western North Atlantic are occasionally impacted by ship strikes. A review of 

NMFS stranding and entanglement records from 1999 through 2003 yield an average of 0.4 

human-caused mortalities of sei whales per year as a result of two ship strikes. The carcass of a 

13-meter female was recovered on May 2, 2001, in New York Harbor after it slid off the bow of 

an arriving ship. The second record within the period was an 11-meter male discovered February 

19, 2003, outside of Norfolk Naval Base in Norfolk, Virginia. The only other NMFS record of 

human-caused sei whale mortality was from November 17, 1994, when a sei whale carcass was 

observed on the bow of a container ship as it docked in Boston, Massachusetts. 

Threats and impacts to the eastern North Pacific stock of sei whales are relatively unknown at 

this time. There is a potential for bycatch of sei whales in drift gillnet fisheries off of California 

23 Includes: International Whaling Commission. 1980. Report of special meeting on Southern Hemisphere sei
 

whales. Rep. Int. Whal. Comm. 30: 493-511. 

24 Includes: IWC (1980); International Whaling Commission. 1996. Report of the sub-committee on Southern
 

Hemisphere baleen whales, Annex E. Rep. Int. Whal. Comm. 46:117-131.
 25 Tillman, M.F. 1977. Estimates of population size for the North Pacific sei whale. Rep. Int. Whal. Comm., Spec. 

Iss. 1:98–106. 

169
 
 

 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

and Mexico. There is also a potential for sei whales in the North Pacific to be killed or seriously 

injured by ship strikes. 

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: 

•		 Monitoring the status of the California/Oregon/Washington stock of sei whales via 

shipboard surveys, which are conducted every 3 years, with Marine Mammal Protection 

Act (MMPA) funding. 

•		 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). 

•		 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). 

Priority Recovery Actions: 

Continue current conservation actions. 

Recovery Priority Number: 3 

This recovery priority number reflects a high degree of threat, low to moderate recovery 

potential, and potential conflict with economic activities. 

170
 
 

 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

Sperm Whale (Physeter macrocephalus) 

Date Listed: June 2, 1970 

Legal Status: Endangered 

Recovery Plan Status: 

A draft recovery plan for the sperm whale was completed in June 2006. 

Species Status: 

Sperm whales occur throughout all ocean basins from equatorial to polar waters, including the 

entire North Atlantic, North Pacific, northern Indian Ocean, and the southern oceans. Reliable 

estimates of current and historical sperm whale abundance across each ocean basin are not 

available. Five stocks of sperm whales are recognized in U.S. waters: the North Atlantic stock, 

the northern Gulf of Mexico stock, the Hawaiian stock, the California/Oregon/Washington stock, 

and the 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 minimum population estimate for the western 

North Atlantic sperm whale stock is 3,539 individuals.26 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 minimum population estimate for the northern Gulf of 

Mexico stock of sperm whales is 1,409 individuals. There are insufficient data to determine the 

population trend for this stock. 

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. Whaling harvests between 1800 and the 1980s took at least 

436,000 sperm whales from the entire North Pacific Ocean. 

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. Based on abundance estimates from 1993–1998, the 

current minimum population estimate for this stock is 43 sperm whales. This includes only areas 

within approximately 25 nautical miles of the main Hawaiian Islands, and does not include 

26 Waring, G.T., E. Josephson, C.P. Fairfield, and K. Maze-Foley (Eds.). 2006. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico 

marine mammal stock assessments 2005. U.S. Dept. Commerce, NOAA Tech. Mem. NMFS-NE-194, 346 pp. 

171
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

animals that were diving and unable to be seen. 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. Based on 1996– 

2001 summer/fall ship surveys off California, Oregon, and Washington, the current minimum 

population estimate for this stock is approximately 885 whales. Sperm whale abundance appears 

to have been rather variable off California and does not show any apparent trend at this time. 

Sperm whales in the North Pacific stock are found in Alaskan waters (Gulf of Alaska, Bering 

Sea, and Aleutian Islands) and have a northern boundary extending from Cape Navarin (62o

N) to 

the Pribilof Islands. The number of sperm whales of the North Pacific occurring within Alaskan 

waters is unknown, and at this time it is not possible to produce a reliable estimate of minimum 

abundance for this stock. Reliable information on population trends in abundance for this stock 

is currently unavailable. 

Threats and Impacts: 

During 1999–2003, human caused mortality for the North Atlantic stock was estimated at 0.4 

sperm whales per year. This is derived from the 2000 stranding of a sperm whale off Florida 

which had fishing gear in its blow hole, and from ship strikes. 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. For the California/Oregon/Washington stock, 

NMFS has observed the incidental take of sperm whales in the California/Oregon 

swordfish/thresher shark drift gillnet fishery. The average estimated incidental take for this 

fishery is 1.0 sperm whale per year from this stock. 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. 

Sperm whales in the North Pacific stock are also known to interact with fisheries. Sperm whale 

interactions with longline fisheries in the Gulf of Alaska typically involve the sperm whales 

feeding off the gear set to target both sablefish and halibut, and may be increasing in frequency. 

The total estimated mortality and serious injury incurred by this stock as a result of incidental 

interactions with fisheries from 2000–2004 is 0.5 whales per year. 

Another potential human-caused source of mortality in sperm whales is from accumulation of 

stable pollutants, such as polychlorobiphenyls (PCBs), chlorinated pesticides (e.g., DDT, DDE, 

and dieldrin), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), or heavy metals. These stable 

pollutants may affect the health or behavior of North Atlantic sperm whales. 

Other possible threats to sperm whales include global sea temperature change and altered prey 

distribution. Also, for the Gulf of Mexico stock of sperm whales, disturbance by anthropogenic 

noise may become an important habitat issue, notably in areas of oil and gas activities or where 

shipping activity is high. 

172
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

Conservation Actions: 

Conservation actions for the recovery of the sperm whale from 2004–2006 are on-going, and 

include the following: 

•		 Monitoring the status of the California/Oregon/Washington stock of sperm whales via 

shipboard surveys, which are conducted every 3 years, with Marine Mammal Protection 

Act (MMPA) funding. 

•		 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). 

•		 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). 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

Continue ongoing conservation actions listed above. 

Recovery Priority Number: 7 

This recovery priority number reflects a moderate magnitude of threat, low to moderate recovery 

potential, and the presence of conflict. 

173
 
 

 

 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

Killer Whale (Orcinus orca) – Southern Resident DPS 

Date Listed: November 18, 2005 

Legal Status: Endangered 

Recovery Plan Status: 

A proposed recovery plan for the Southern Resident killer whale was completed in November 

2006. 

Species Status: 

In the 1980s and early 1990s, the Southern Resident population increased following live captures 

for public display in the 1960s and 1970s (Figure 11). From 1996–2001, the population declined 

by almost 20 percent, prompting a petition to list them under the ESA. Since 2001, the 

population has increased, and as of the 2006 census there were 90 whales. 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

120 

Number of whales 

196019621964196619681970197219741976197819801982198419861988199019921994199619982000200220042006 

Year 

Figure 11. Population size and trend of Southern Resident killer whales, 1960-2006. Data from 1960-1973 

(open circles) are number projections from the matrix model of Olesiuk et al. (1990). Data from 1974-2006 (closed 

diamonds) were obtained through photo-identification surveys of the three pods (J, K, and L) in this community and 

were provided by the Center for Whale Research (unpubl. data). Data for these years represent the number of 

whales present at the end of each calendar year except for 2006, when data extend only through September. 

Limiting Factors and Threats: 

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, the presence of reproductive age 

females that are not having calves, and the potential for inbreeding. In addition, the small 

population size and social structure make Southern Resident killer whales susceptible to 

174
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

catastrophic oils 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 2004–2006, specific funding for research and conservation efforts for Southern Resident 

killer whales was available. Research programs funded include projects on taxonomy, vessel 

interactions, prey associations, health assessments, population monitoring, winter distribution, 

research planning, and coordination. 

In addition to research projects, continuing recovery planning and implementation of 

conservation actions include: 

•		 Development of a recovery plan, including stakeholder workshops. 

•		 Designation of critical habitat contained within the proposed recovery plan, published on 

November 29, 2006 (71 FR 69101). 

•		 Completion of an economic analysis. 

•		 Education and outreach programs, including continued promotion of the “Be Whale 

Wise” campaign, partnering with the Seattle Aquarium, support of “Killer Whale Tales” 

classroom program, and ads in fishing regulation pamphlet and marina maps. 

•		 Increased on-water stewardship and vessel monitoring, including reports on vessel 

activities in the vicinity of whales. 

•		 Increased enforcement presence on the water. 

•		 Mapping of whale sightings and contaminated sediments. 

•		 Increased capability to respond to killer whale strandings. 

•		 Continued coordination with Washington State and Canada. 

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. The recovery actions 

needed 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. 

175
 
 

 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

Education and outreach: Enhance public awareness, educate the public on actions they can 

participate in to conserve killer whales, and improve reporting of southern resident killer whale 

sightings and strandings. 

Respond to sick, stranded, 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. 

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 (1) a high magnitude of threat due to low population 

numbers and continuing threats to recovery, (2) a moderate recovery potential based on 

uncertainty regarding most important threats, and (3) presence of conflict because regulatory 

actions taken could involve restrictions on commercial fishing, contaminant discharge, and 

vessels. 

176
 
 ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2004–2006 

Appendix. NMFS Recovery Priority Number Guidelines
 

177
 
and other forms of international 

cooperetive efforts. Section 4(O of the 

A.ct also requires NOAA Fisheries to 

give priority to those endangered or 

threatened species (without regard to 

ts~xonomiclassification) most likely to 

benefit from such plans, particularly 

those species that are, or may be, in 

conflict with construction or other 

developmental projects or other forms of 

economic activity. Section 4@) of the [Docket No. 71015-00871 A.ct requires that NOAA Fisheries 

Endangered and Thre Species; e!stablisha system for developing and 

Ustlng implementing recovery plans on a and Recovery 

Guidelines priority basis. 

The assignment of priorities to listing, 

rt!classification, dellsting, and recovery 

aictions will allow NOAA Fisheries to 

use the limited resources available to 

implement the Act in the most effective 

way. On May 30,1889, NOAA Flsheries 

published proposed guidelines in the 

Federal R@tm (SQFR 22025) and 

rc!quested comments. No comments 

were received from the public. NOAA 

Fisheries iseues these final guidelines

with only slight modifications Erom the 

roposal based on lnternal reviews. 

These guidelines are based primarily 

on guidelines published by the U.S.Fish ,.d Wildlife Senrice (FWS)on 

eptember 21,1e83 (48 43098).NOM 

Fisheries believes that, to the extent 

encies should follow 

ulse by I%~s.~o&ever,-dGe to the 

smaller nymber of listed ~pedes and the 

anticipated smaller num'berof candidate 

species under NOAAFishefies 

ju~risdiction,NOAA Fisheries believes - that fewer priority categories are 

nlecessary and the FWS guidelines have 

bleen modified accordingly. 

These priority systems are bidelines 

and should not be interpreted as 

irdlexible framewo~ks for making final 

diecisions on funding or on performance 

oil tasks. They will be given 

considerable weight by the agency in 

miaking decisions; however, the agency 

will also evaluate the cost-effectiveness 

olF funding and tasks and take advantage 

olC oppoitunities. For example, the 

agency may be able to conduct a 

relatively low priority item in 

conjunction with an ongoing activity at 

littlecost -

A. Listing, Reclassification, aid 

D'efisting Priorities 

enhely outside U.S. juris Listing and Reclassification F~~ likely to benefit from to Endangered 

In considering species to be listed or 

reclassified from threatened to 
~ederalRegister / Vol. 55. No. 110 / F.:iday, June 15, 1990 1 Notices 24297 

endangered, two criteria will be 

evaluated to establish four priority 

categories as shown in Table 1. 

TABLE PRIORITIES FOR LISTING OR 

RECLASSIFICATIONFROMTHREATENED 

TO ENDANGERED 

The ,first cri.terlon. magnitude-of 

heet,gives a higher ,listingpriority to 

species facing the greatest hats to 

their continued existence. Species facing 

threa ta of low tomoderrrtemaani tude 

will be givenalower pdarity. ~e 

recond.criteriaa. Immediac~ &.threat, 

givas a higher 1fating.pri0d~~to sipecies 

facing actual &.reate &tan 40 those 

*peciea facing thteata to which they are 

intrinaicay vulnerable, but which are 

nnt~curmntlyaotha. 

'2Dalisfing.and %edasslficafion From 

Endangered. .to'~atened 

NOAA Firhedes curenfly reviews 

listed speuea &least every five yearsin 

accordance wfth secfion 41~x2) of fhe 

Act to determine whefher any 3isted 

species qualify for ~edmsification or 

re~noval from thelist. When a species 

wamnts recltrssification or delisfing, 

priortty 'for developing tegulationa will 

'be,assigned according .toaeguideiines 

given in Table 2,Two criteria will 'be 

evnluated to estab!ish six priority 

categories. 

TABLE~.-PRIORITJES FOR DELISTINGAND 

RECLASSIFICATIONFROMENDANGERED 

TQ THREATENED 

Management Impact , !&Mion status , Rriority 

High............................ Petitioned action.. 1 


flnpewioned ' 2 

aaion. 

Moderate.......--..,....... Petiticnedaction.. 3 

Unpetitioned 4 ' action. 

Low...............................Petitionedaction., 5 

Unpetitioned , 6 

action. 

- The priorities established in Fable 2 

are not intended to direct or mandate 

decisions regarding a species' 

reclassification or removal from the list. 

The priority system ia intended only to 

set priorities for developing rules for 

species that no longer satisfy the listing 

criteria for their particular designation 

under the Act. The decision regarding 

whether a species will be retained on 

the list. and in which cate ory, will be 

based on the factora oont ined-in 

section 41al[lI - .-- of .the Act nd 50*CFR

424.1rl. 

The fwtnonsidertrtion f the aystem 

outlined in TeMe 2 accou tr for 'the 

management impaatientai ed by a 

species' inolusion on%he st. 

Management impact is th1

1 

edent.of 

prote<tive actions, includi restrictions 

on human activities, whic Pmust be . 

te'kenrto prciYectvini! reader ahtea 

set priorities for funding 

twelve species recovew prjoflty 

numbers (Table 3). 

. .No.mflict .... Lavto ' COM ......-: 

: modenfb 

No.conflia(.... 

Low................. : High....,.-....-.. : Conffi.".....: . No carflict.... 

:Lowto .GonfM......". , rmoderatw. ! 

No conllffil.... 

The Rest dterion, magnitude of 

threat,.b.&vided into4tree.categories: Jiieh, moderate, mid low, The high 

~c~~ryme~~ce#tinction is almost 

csrtain in cthe immediate future because 

d ara$i%pogrllenion decline or habitat 

desbucfion.bllade~ete means the species 

ad;nat.fecece~kbctionif recovery is 

lemporaeilyb~doff, although there is a 

tmntinuingpo.pd~tion decline or threat 

lo itshabitat. 3axa in the low category 

are rare, or are facing a population 

decline which mayLbe a short-term, selfcorrectingfluctutltion, or the impacts of 

{:beats to fhe species' habitat are not 

IFully known. 

The second criterion,recovq 

potential, assures +that resources are 

iusd in fie lnost cad effecfiuemner 

within each mapitude of threat mnking. 

lfriorifyforpreparing and hnplerneding 

recovery plam would go to species with 

{the greatest potential for success. 

.Recovery potential is based on how well 

lbiologiceland eaological limitingfactors 

and threats to the species' edrtonceme 

understood, andtfie extent cd 

managemerit actions needed. A speciics 

has a highrecwery potential if the 

limiting Jadora and .threats to the 

speciesant wen understood and the 

nded management actions are known 

and have a highpabability of success. 

Aspecieslhas.a low to moderate 

~ecoverypotentidif the limiting factors 

or threats tothe species are poorly 

understood or if the needed 

management acfions are no1 known, ere 

cost-prohibitive or are expcfimental 

with an uncertain probability of success. 

The third criterion, conflict, refledts 

the Act's requirement that recovory 

priority .be giuen to those species that 

are, or may be, in conflict with 

constructionax other developmental 

projects or other forms of economic 
-


resources. 

Act 

2. Recovery Task Priority 

T~su 4.--RECOVERY TASKPRIORITY.

f=fiaw Typeoftask 

I I,..-...- An action tha mcJ# be 

taken to prevenl exiioction or to aentify those 

.Cbbnsyww 

vent exlJndfon 

2 An action that must be 

taken lo prevent a signifi 

cant decfina in popu(ati0n 

nwnbers. habitat quality. 

or omer sigdi~anln6ga 

fYb hpscts sbrt of ex- tinccior~ 

3.-....-.----.....--.- M 0th Kths m i y 

co povide for full rcxnv- ery d i3e spcies. 

prevent extinction Therefore, some 

plans will not have any Priority 1 tasks. ,, In general, Priority 1tasks only apply to ag a species facing a high magnitude of 

threat (species recovery priority 14). 

When the task priorities (Table 4) are fie combined with the species recovery 


priority (Table 3). the most ci-itical 


activities lor each listed species can be 


idenaled and evaluated against other Assist~nt Admjn 


NaiionalOceonl species recovery actions. This system Adminis'm'ion. recognizes the need to work toward the iFRDoc. 90-l~~ recovery of all listed species. not simply ~UNO-aS10-*Y those facing the highest magnitude of 


threat In general, NOAA Fisheries 


intends that Priority 1tasks will be 


addressed before Priority 2 tasks and 


Priority 2 tasks before Priority 3 tasks. 


Within each task priority, species 


recovery priority will be used to further 


rank tasks. For example, a Priority 1 


task for a species with a recovery 


priority of 4 would rank higher than a 


priority 2 task for a species with a