Biennial Report to Congress 

on the Recovery Program for Threatened 

and Endangered Species 

October 1, 2006 – September 30, 2008 

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 2006–2008 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

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

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

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

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

ESA-LISTED SPECIES UNDER NMFS JURISDICTION OCCURING IN U.S. WATERS
 

........................................................................................................................................................ 4 

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

GREEN SEA TURTLE (CHELONIA MYDAS) .................................................................................... 10 

HAWKSBILL SEA TURTLE (ERETMOCHELYS IMBRICATA).............................................................. 15 

KEMP’S RIDLEY SEA TURTLE (LEPIDOCHELYS KEMPII) .............................................................. 19 

LEATHERBACK SEA TURTLE (DERMOCHELYS CORIACEA) ........................................................... 22 

LOGGERHEAD SEA TURTLE (CARETTA CARETTA) ........................................................................ 26 

OLIVE RIDLEY SEA TURTLE (LEPIDOCHELYS OLIVACEA) ............................................................ 31 

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

OVERVIEW FOR 2006–2008 ....................................................................................................... 34 

SALMON RECOVERY IN THE NORTHWEST .................................................................................. 42 

Lower Columbia River Coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch)......................................................... 42
 

Oregon Coast Coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch)....................................................................... 45
 

Lower Columbia River Chinook ESU (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) ................................... 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) ................................................................ 66
 

Lower Columbia River Steelhead DPS (Oncorhynchus mykiss) .......................................... 70
 

Puget Sound Steelhead DPS (Oncorhynchus mykiss)........................................................... 72
 

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 ................................... 84 

Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast Coho ESU (Oncorhynchus kisutch).............. 84
 

SALMON RECOVERY IN THE SOUTHWEST................................................................................... 88 

Northern California Steelhead DPS (Oncorhynchus mykiss)............................................... 88
 

California Central Valley Steelhead DPS (Oncorhynchus mykiss)...................................... 91
 

Central California Coast Steelhead DPS (Oncorhynchus mykiss)....................................... 96
 

South-Central California Coast Steelhead DPS (Oncorhynchus mykiss) ............................ 99
 

Southern California Coast Steelhead DPS (Oncorhynchus mykiss)................................... 102
 

Central California Coast Coho Salmon ESU (Oncorhynchus kisutch).............................. 105
 

i 
 

 

 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

California Coastal Chinook Salmon ESU (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)........................... 109
 

Sacramento River Winter-run Chinook Salmon ESU (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha).......... 112
 

Central Valley Spring-run Chinook Salmon ESU (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) ............... 115
 

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

ATLANTIC SALMON – GULF OF MAINE DPS (SALMO SALAR).................................................. 119 

NON-SALMONID FISH RECOVERY.................................................................................. 122 

SMALLTOOTH SAWFISH (PRISTIS PECTINATA) – U.S. DPS ........................................................ 122 

GULF STURGEON (ACIPENSER OXYRINCHUS DESOTOI)............................................................... 124 

SHORTNOSE STURGEON (ACIPENSER BREVIROSTRUM)............................................................... 126 

GREEN STURGEON (ACIPENSER MEDIROSTRIS) – SOUTHERN DPS............................................. 130 

PLANT RECOVERY............................................................................................................... 133 

JOHNSON’S SEAGRASS (HALOPHILA JOHNSONII)....................................................................... 133 

INVERTEBRATE RECOVERY............................................................................................. 135 

WHITE ABALONE (HALIOTIS SORENSENI).................................................................................. 135 

ELKHORN AND STAGHORN CORALS (ACROPORA PALMATA AND A. CERVICORNIS) ...................... 138 

MARINE MAMMAL RECOVERY ....................................................................................... 140 

SEALS AND SEA LIONS............................................................................................................. 140 

Caribbean Monk Seal (Monachus tropicalis)..................................................................... 140
 

Guadalupe Fur Seal (Arctocephalus townsendi)................................................................ 141
 

Hawaiian Monk Seal (Monachus schauinslandi) ............................................................... 143
 

Steller Sea Lion – Western and Eastern DPS (Eumetopias jubatus).................................. 146
 

WHALES................................................................................................................................... 151 

Beluga Whale – Cook Inlet DPS (Delphinapterus leucas) ................................................. 151
 

Blue Whale (Balaenoptera musculus)................................................................................. 153
 

Bowhead Whale (Balaena mysticetus)................................................................................ 155
 

Fin Whale (Balaenoptera physalus) ................................................................................... 157
 

Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) .................................................................... 159
 

North Atlantic Right Whale (Eubalaena glacialis)............................................................. 163
 

North Pacific right whale (Eubalaena japonica)................................................................ 166
 

Sei Whale (Balaenoptera borealis)..................................................................................... 168
 

Sperm Whale (Physeter macrocephalus)............................................................................ 170
 

Killer Whale (Orcinus orca) – Southern Resident DPS...................................................... 173
 

Appendix A. NMFS Recovery Priority Number Guidelines................................................ 175 

Cover photo credits: Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon in Butte Creek. July 2007 (NOAA); white abalone 

(NOAA); beluga whale (NOAA), Steller sea lion (NMML photo gallery 2002), and green turtle (David Burdick) 

ii 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

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 Pacific salmon and steelhead ...................................................34 

Table 5. Status of ESA recovery plan development status for Pacific salmon and 

steelhead................................................................................................................ 36 

Table 6. Estimated abundance estimates for ten shortnose sturgeon populations ................. 127 

Table 7. Summary of major threats to shortnose sturgeon by major river systems............... 128
 

Table 8. Nearest neighbor estimates over time for Tanner Bank ......................................... 136 

LIST OF FIGURES 

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

Shoals, Hawaiian Archipelago, 1973–2008.......................................................... 10 

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

1989–2008............................................................................................................. 11 

Figure 3. Kemp’s ridley nesting trends in Mexico, 1978–2008 .............................................. 19 

Figure 4. Annual loggerhead nests documented on Japanese beaches, 1988–2008 ................ 27 

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

1989–2008............................................................................................................. 27 

Figure 6. Distribution of Pacific Chinook Salmon ESUs and Steelhead DPSs....................... 35 

Figure 7. Density of white abalone by depth at Tanner Bank ............................................... 135 

Figure 8. Steller sea lion range and rookeries........................................................................ 147 

iii 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

ACRONYM LIST
 

AFRP Anadromous Fish Restoration Program 

ASC Atlantic Salmon Commission 

BRT Biological Review Team 

BSRFH Bureau of Sea Run Fisheries and Habitat 

CALFED CALFED Bay-Delta Program 

CC California Coastal 

CCC Central California Coast 

CDFG California Department of Fish and Game 

CV Central Valley 

CMP Conservation and Management Plan 

CVPIA Central Valley Project Improvement Act 

DPS Distinct Population Segments 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

ESU Evolutionarily Significant Unit 

FCRPS Federal Columbia River Power System 

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

FRH Feather River Hatchery 

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

FY Fiscal Year 

GIS Geographic Information System 

GOM Gulf of Maine 

HCP Habitat Conservation Plan 

IOSEA Indian Ocean and Southeast Asia 

MHI Main Hawaiian Islands 

MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act 

MOU Memorandum of Understanding 

NASCO North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization 

NC Northern California 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NWHI Northwestern Hawaiian Islands 

PCBs polychlorinated biphenyls 

PCSRF Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund 

SONCC Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast 

TED Turtle Excluder Device 

TRT Technical Recovery Teams 

WCPFC Western and Central Pacific Fishery Commission 

iv 
 

 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

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 the Interior report to Congress every 

2 years on the status of efforts to develop and implement recovery plans, and on the status of all 

species for which recovery plans have been developed (section 4(f)(3)). The Secretary of 

Commerce has delegated responsibility for endangered and threatened species recovery to the 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA). This is the tenth 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, 2006, through September 30, 2008. It includes accounts of each species, its status, 

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

needed in the next biennium. During the two years covered in this report, NMFS had jurisdiction 

over 59 domestic species1,2 of salmon, sturgeon, sawfish, sea grass, mollusks, sea turtles, and 

marine mammals, and eight foreign species, for a total of 67 species. The 59 species addressed in 

this report include three newly listed or relisted species: 

•	 Cook Inlet Beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas), listed as endangered on October 22, 

2008 (73 FR 62919) 

•	 Oregon coast coho, relisted as threatened on February 11, 2008 (73 FR 7816) 

•	 Puget Sound Steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), listed as threatened on May 7, 

2007 (72 FR 26722) 

Also, the Northern right whale was split into two distinct population segments (DPS), North 

Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) and North Pacific right whale (Eubalaena japonica), 

on March 6, 2008 (73 FR 12024). 

Unfortunately, during this time, the Caribbean monk seal (Monachus tropicalis) was delisted due 

to extinction (73 FR 63901). 

Of our 59 domestic listed species, 25 currently have recovery plans and 32 plans are being 

developed: 

•	 Revised plans have been completed for the Hawaiian monk seal, Steller sea lion, and 

Atlantic population of Loggerhead sea turtle. 

1

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

any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife that interbreeds when mature. 

2

 Black abalone, not included in this report, was listed January 14, 2009.
 

1
 
 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

•	 Recovery plans were developed for Southern Resident Killer Whale and four Pacific 

salmon evolutionarily significant units (ESUs)/DPSs (Upper Columbia River steelhead 

DPS, Upper Columbia River Spring Run Chinook ESU, Hood Canal Summer-run chum 

ESU, and Puget Sound Chinook ESU). 

•	 Recovery plans are being revised for Kemp’s ridley sea turtle, sperm whale, and fin 

whale and a draft recovery plan is being developed for sei whale. 

•	 Recovery plans are currently under development for 24 ESUs and DPSs of Pacific 

salmon and steelhead, respectively. 

•	 Two listed species currently have no recovery plan in development—Guadalupe fur seal 

and bowhead whale. 

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 Kemp’s ridley sea 

turtle, smalltooth sawfish, Johnson’s seagrass, white abalone, elkhorn and staghorn coral, 

Hawaiian monk seal, and right whale. Also, two active take reduction teams, formed in 

accordance with Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), 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 

means NMFS is using to meet this challenge is through meaningful stakeholder involvement in 

recovery planning and implementation. All NMFS’ active recovery teams either have 

stakeholder representation (federal, state, and local government agencies; affected industries; 

conservation or other non-governmental organizations; or affected individuals) on their teams, 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 and is active on these teams, 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, which is 

being field-tested in regional and field offices (see 

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

Between October 1, 2006, and September 30, 2008, of the 59 domestic endangered or threatened 

species listed under the ESA, 22 (37%) were stabilized or improving; 17 (29%) were known to 

be declining; and 20 (34%) were unknown or mixed in their status. These percentages reflect a 

minor variation from the previous 2004–2006 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. 

2
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

Recovery plans are available online at 

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

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

Endangered Species Division – Recovery Plans 

Office of Protected Resources – F/PR3 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

1315 East-West Highway 

Silver Spring, MD 20910-3226 

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

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

3
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

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

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

SEA TURTLES Green sea turtle -Breeding colony populations in Florida, Pacific coast Mexico 7/28/1978 Endangered 

Increasing (FL); 

Declining 

(Mexico) 

5 Completed 01/1998 

-Rangewide 7/28/1978 Threatened Declining 5 Completed 01/1998 (Pacific); 10/1991 (Atlantic) 

Hawksbill sea turtle 6/2/1970 Endangered Declining 1 Completed 01/1998 (Pacific); 11/1993 (Atlantic) 

Kemp’s Ridley sea turtle 12/2/1970 Endangered Increasing 5 Completed 08/1992 – Under Revision 

Leatherback sea turtle 6/2/1970 Endangered Declining (Pacific); Mixed (Atlantic) 1 Completed 01/1998 (Pacific); 05/1992 (Atlantic) 

Loggerhead sea turtle 7/28/1978 Threatened Mixed (Pacific); Declining (Atlantic) 5 Completed 01/1998 (Pacific); 12/1991; Revision Completed 12/2008 (Atlantic) 

Olive Ridley sea turtle -Breeding colony populations of Pacific coast Mexico 7/28/1978 Endangered Mixed 5 Completed 01/1998 -Rangewide 7/28/1978 Threatened Mixed 5 Completed 01/1998 

PACIFIC SALMON Northwest Region -Lower Columbia River Coho ESU 3/24/1999; 6/28/20053 Threatened Unknown 1 Under Development 

-Oregon Coast coho ESU 8/10/19983; 2/11/2008 Threatened3 Increasing 1 Under Development 

-Lower Columbia River Chinook ESU 3/24/1999; 6/28/20053 Threatened Stable or Increasing 1 Partial Draft Completed 02/2006 (Washington); Under Development (Oregon) 

-Puget Sound Chinook ESU 3/24/1999; 6/28/20053 Threatened Increasing 1 Completed 01/2007 -Snake River Fall-run Chinook ESU 4/22/1992; 6/28/20053 Threatened Stable or Increasing 1 Draft Completed 03/1995 (not adopted); Under Development 

-Snake River Spring/Summer-run Chinook ESU 

4/22/1992; 

6/28/20053 Threatened Unstable or Declining 1 Draft Completed 03/1995 (not adopted); Under Development 

4
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

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

-Upper Columbia River, Spring Run Chinook ESU 

3/24/1999; 

6/28/20053 Endangered Stable or Increasing 1 Completed 09/2007 

-Upper Willamette River Chinook ESU 3/24/1999; 6/28/20053 Threatened Stable or Increasing 1 Draft Completed 09/2007 

-Columbia River chum ESU 3/25/1999; 6/28/20053 Threatened Stable or Increasing 1 Partial Draft Completed 02/2006 (Washington); Under Development (Oregon) 

-Hood Canal Summer-run chum ESU 3/25/1999; 6/28/20053 Threatened Increasing 1 Completed 05/2007 

-Ozette Lake sockeye ESU 3/25/1999; 6/28/20053 Threatened Stable or Increasing 1 Draft Completed 04/2008 

-Snake River sockeye ESU 11/20/1991; 6/28/20053 Endangered Unstable or Declining 3 Draft Completed 03/1995 (not adopted); Under Development 

-Lower Columbia River steelhead DPS 3/19/1998; 1/5/20063 Threatened Stable or Increasing 1 Partial Draft Completed 02/2006 (Washington); Under Development (Oregon) 

-Middle Columbia River steelhead DPS 3/25/1999; 1/5/20063 Threatened Stable or Increasing 1 Draft Completed 05/2006 

-Snake River Basin steelhead DPS 8/18/1997; 1/5/20063 Threatened Stable or Increasing 1 Draft Completed 03/1995 (not adopted); Under Development 

-Upper Columbia River steelhead DPS 8/18/1997; 1/5/20063 Threatened Stable or Increasing 1 Completed 09/2007 

-Upper Willamette River steelhead DPS 

3/25/1999; 

1/5/20063 Threatened Stable or Increasing 1 Draft Completed 09/2007 

-Puget Sound steelhead DPS 5/11/2007 Threatened Unknown 1 Under Development Northwest and Southwest Regions -Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast coho ESU 

5/6/1997; 

6/28/20053 Threatened Mixed 1 Under Development 

Southwest Region -Northern California steelhead DPS 6/7/2000; 1/5/20063 Threatened Declining 5 Under Development 

-California Central Valley steelhead DPS 

3/19/1998; 

1/5/20063 Threatened Declining 7 Under Development 

-Central California Coast steelhead DPS 

8/18/1997; 

1/5/20063 Threatened Declining 3 Under Development 

-South-Central California Coast steelhead DPS 

8/18/1997; 

1/5/20063 Threatened Unknown 3 Under Development 

5
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

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

-Southern California steelhead DPS 

8/18/1997; 

05/01/20024; 

1/5/20063 Endangered Unknown; likely declining 3 Under Development 

-Central California Coast coho ESU 10/31/1996; 6/28/20053 Endangered Declining 1 Under Development 

-California Coastal Chinook ESU 9/16/1999 6/28/20053 Threatened Mixed 3 Under Development 

-Sacramento River Winter-run Chinook ESU 

11/5/1990; 

1/4/19945; 

6/28/20053 Endangered Declining 3 Draft Completed 08/1997; Under Development 

-Central Valley Spring-run Chinook ESU 

9/16/1999; 

6/28/20053 Threatened Declining 7 Under Development 

ATLANTIC SALMON Gulf of Maine DPS 11/17/2000 Endangered Declining 1 Completed 11/2005 

NON-SALMONID FISH Smalltooth sawfish – U.S. DPS 4/1/2003 Endangered Unknown 7 Completed 01/2009 

Gulf sturgeon 9/30/1991 Threatened Stable 8 Completed 09/1995 

Shortnose sturgeon 3/11/1967 Endangered Mixed 5 Completed 12/1998 Green sturgeon – southern DPS 4/7/2006 Threatened Unknown; likely Declining 5 Under Development 

PLANTS Johnson’s seagrass 9/14/1998 Threatened Stable 7 Completed 09/2002 

INVERTEBRATES White abalone 5/29/2001 Endangered Declining 2 Completed 10/2008 

Elkhorn coral 5/9/2006 Threatened Declining 7 Under Development Staghorn coral 5/9/2006 Threatened Declining 7 Under Development SEALS AND SEA LIONS Caribbean monk seal 3/11/1967; 10/28/20087 Extinct Extinct NA None 

Guadalupe fur seal 12/16/1985 Threatened Increasing 10 None 

6
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

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

Hawaiian monk seal 11/23/1976 Endangered Declining 1 Completed 03/1983; Revision Completed 08/2007 

Steller sea lion – eastern DPS 

4/10/1990; 

11/26/1990; 

5/5/976 

Threatened Increasing 10 Completed 12/1992; Revision Completed 03/2008 

Steller sea lion – western DPS 

4/10/1990; 

11/26/1990; 

5/5/976 Endangered Mixed 7 Completed 12/1992; Revision Completed 03/2008 

WHALES Beluga Whale – Cook Inlet DPS 10/22/2008 Endangered Declining 3 Under Development 

Blue whale 6/2/1970 Endangered Unknown 7 Completed 07/1998 

Bowhead whale 6/2/1970 Endangered Increasing 7 None 

Fin whale 6/2/1970 Endangered Unknown 7 Draft Completed 06/2006 

Humpback whale 6/2/1970 Endangered Increasing 3 Completed 11/1991 

North Atlantic right whale 6/2/1970; 03/06/2008 Endangered Increasing 1 Completed 05/2005 

North Pacific right whale 6/2/1970; 03/06/2008 Endangered Unknown 1 Under Development 

Sei whale 6/2/1970 Endangered Unknown 3 Draft Completed 07/1998 – Under Revision Sperm whale 6/2/1970 Endangered Unknown 7 Draft Completed 06/2006 

Killer whale – Southern Resident DPS 11/18/2005 Endangered Declining 3 Completed 01/2008 

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 are designated from 1 (high) to 12 (low) based on the following 

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

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 NMFS could not exclude hatchery fish within the ESU when listing. 

Although the Alsea ruling affected only one ESU, subsequent to the ruling, NMFS initiated new status reviews for 27 ESUs and, in 2005, re-listed 15 ESUs of salmon with revised definitions of the populations to be included in the ESU, delisted one ESU (OR Coast coho) and listed one ESU (Lower Columbia River coho); and in 2006, re-listed 10 ESUs of steelhead (and called them DPSs). 

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 via a final rule on 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 endangered on 1/4/1994. 6 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 rule on 11/26/1990. NMFS separated the species into western and 

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

7 This species was delisted due to extinction. 

7
 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

SEA TURTLE RECOVERY 

Overview 

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

management, and recovery of sea turtle species found in waters and lands under U.S. 

jurisdiction. Although both agencies work closely together on recovery activities, NMFS is 

primarily responsible for recovery actions in the marine environment and FWS is primarily 

responsible for recovery actions in the terrestrial environment (i.e., nesting beaches). Six species 

of sea turtles are listed under the ESA and targeted by NMFS recovery activities: green, 

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

DPSs are listed separately: (1) the green turtle breeding populations in Florida and on the Pacific 

Coast of Mexico and (2) the olive ridley turtle breeding populations on the Pacific Coast of 

Mexico. 

Threats 

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

alteration of nesting and foraging habitats; incidental capture in commercial fisheries; and vessel 

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

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

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

effectively address all threats to marine turtles, NMFS and the FWS have developed recovery 

plans to direct research and management efforts for each sea turtle species. 

Marine Turtle Bycatch in the United States 

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

and conservation of marine turtle populations. To evaluate this threat, NMFS has instituted 

fishery observer programs in some fisheries to document sea turtle bycatch and has promulgated 

regulations to reduce sea turtle bycatch in certain Pacific, Atlantic, and Gulf of Mexico fisheries. 

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

and time/area closures) to reduce sea turtle bycatch in the Hawaii longline fishery and the 

California/Oregon drift gillnet fishery. 

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

practices, and time/area closures) to reduce sea turtle bycatch in pelagic longline, mid-Atlantic 

gillnet, Chesapeake Bay pound net, and Southeast shrimp and flounder trawl fisheries. In the 

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

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

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

nets. 

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

Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Fisheries to evaluate and address sea turtle bycatch 

comprehensively across jurisdictional (i.e., state and federal) and fishing sector (i.e., commercial 

and recreational) boundaries on a per-gear basis in fisheries of the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. 

8
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

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

regulations into certain of these fisheries is under development. 

International Sea Turtle Conservation 

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

ensure the survival of these highly migratory animals. NMFS has a broad national and 

international program for the conservation and recovery of marine turtles—the goals of the 

international component of the sea turtle program are to facilitate the global conservation and 

recovery of sea turtles by working closely with other nations through diplomatic channels, 

capacity building, and scientific exchange. To do this, NMFS participates in two globally 

significant international instruments designed to facilitate international sea turtle conservation, 

the Inter-American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles and the Indian 

Ocean Southeast Asia Marine Turtle Memorandum of Understanding. In addition NMFS works 

through other bi-lateral and multi-lateral channels and organizations to advance global sea turtle 

conservation. 

9
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

Green Sea Turtle (Chelonia mydas) 

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

Legal Status: 

Endangered (breeding colony populations in 

Florida and Pacific coast of Mexico) 

Threatened (rangewide except where listed as 

endangered) 

Recovery Plan Status: 

Pacific: Two final recovery plans were approved 

on January 12, 1998; one for the East Pacific green 

turtle population and one for all other Pacific 

populations. 

Atlantic: A final recovery plan was approved on October 29, 1991. 

Species Status: An assessment of the annual number of nesting females from major nesting 

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

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

the past three generations. In the United States, the nesting populations in Hawaii (Figure 1) and 

Florida (Figure 2) have been documented as increasing over the past 10–20 years. Age at sexual 

maturity is estimated as between 30 and 50 years. Thus, caution is warranted when interpreting 

short-term nesting trend data. 

Threats and Impacts: Threats and 

impacts in the marine environment 

affecting both the threatened rangewide 

populations and the endangered breeding 

populations of green turtles include the 

following: 

•	 Harvest of immature turtles and 

adults: Direct harvest of East 

Pacific green turtles has been 

documented in Mexico and Peru. 

In the West and Central Pacific, 

direct harvest of immature turtles 

and adults occurs throughout the 

green turtle’s range, and 

potentially including (although 

unauthorized) the U.S. flagged 

areas of Guam, Commonwealth 

of the Northern Mariana Islands, 

and American Samoa. A legal fishery for green turtles also occurs in the Caribbean; 

Nicaragua’s commercial turtle fishery is estimated to kill thousands of large juvenile and 

adult green turtles each year. 

Photo credit: David Burdick 

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

French Frigate Shoals, Hawaiian Archipelago, 1973–2008 

10
 
 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

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

beaches, 1989–2008. 

•	 Incidental capture in 

commercial and artisanal 

fisheries: Fisheries known 

to interact with green 

turtles include gillnet, 

longline, hook and line, 

purse seine, pound net, 

trap/pot gear, dredge, and 

trawl fisheries.
 

•	 Incidental capture in 

recreational fisheries:
 

Fisheries known to 

interact with green turtles 

include shore-based and 

nearshore hook and line 

fisheries for coastal sport 

fish. 

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

debris, and effects include interference with metabolism as well as absorption of toxic byproducts. They can also become entangled in marine debris, such as “ghost” fishing gear. 

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

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)) in the marine environment have been detected in 

turtles and their eggs. 

•	 Vessel strikes: Especially in areas where recreational and/or commercial vessel traffic 

(small, medium, and/or large vessels) is intense, propeller and collision injuries are 

common. Vessel activities may also destroy or degrade habitat through anchoring, 

propeller scarring, and groundings. 

•	 Power plant entrainment and entrapment, along both the U.S. Atlantic and Pacific coasts. 

•	 Dredging and beach nourishment activities: These activities can result in marine habitat 

destruction via both direct and indirect effects and hopper dredges can entrain and kill 

turtles. 

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

gas and oil structure removal and use of explosives during exploration activities) can kill 

or injure turtles, and destroy or damage habitat. 

•	 Military activities: Military exercises in the marine environment may impact the 

migratory and foraging behavior of turtles and their habitats.
 

•	 Global climate change and sea level rise resulting in changes in nesting beach habitat 

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

Conservation Actions: Major conservation actions conducted in 2006–2008 to advance 

recovery of the green turtle include the following: 

Pacific/Indian Ocean: 

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

stranded turtles through genetic analysis, flipper tagging, and satellite telemetry. 

•	 Identified habitat requirements using stable isotope analysis. 

11
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

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

as on the high seas to monitor, report, and estimate bycatch. 

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

Network, including genetic sampling and analysis of age classes. 

•	 Supported research to determine satellite transmitter drag on turtles. 

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

through education and outreach, a circle hook exchange program, and fishing gear 

experiments in Ecuador, Mexico, Guatemala, Costa Rica, Peru, Brazil, Columbia, Chile, 

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

•	 Conducted experiments to reduce bycatch and mortality in longline fisheries, including 

testing “stealth gear,” blue-dyed bait, deep day-time fishing, and new circle hook designs 

in domestic and international fisheries. 

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

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

collaboration with six international agencies. 

•	 Participated in the Indian Ocean Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on the 

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

(IOSEA), and its associated Conservation and Management Plan (CMP), to provide a 

framework for the conservation of sea turtles and their habitats in the Indo-Pacific region. 

Led the development and negotiations to obtain agreement and passage of a resolution 

dedicated to reducing bycatch of sea turtles. 

•	 Convened a workshop to review and assess the results of all U.S. longline bycatch 

reduction efforts to date, including the available information on the effects of circle hooks 

on bycatch species and target catch, and to use this information to (1) identify best gear 

and fishing practices and (2) develop an action plan to direct NMFS’ domestic and 

international marine turtle longline bycatch reduction efforts. 

Western and Central Pacific: 

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

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

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

Caledonia, Fiji, and Cook Islands. 

•	 Continued long-term monitoring and research of the Hawaiian green turtle to identify 

potential causes of and threats posed by fibropapillomatosis. 

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

Islands, evaluated population trends, and designed and evaluated conservation strategies 

via stochastic simulation models. 

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

throughout Hawaiian archipelago. 

•	 Supported the State of Hawaii in preliminary stages of assessing the impact of nearshore 

recreational fisheries on sea turtle populations. 

•	 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. 

12
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

•	 Supported capacity building in American Samoa, Guam, and Commonwealth of Northern 

Mariana Islands for nesting beach and in-water monitoring and to assess threats to marine 

turtles and their nesting habitat. 

•	 Supported turtle monitoring programs and capacity building in the Federated States of 

Micronesia and the Republic of Palau. 

•	 Supported sea turtle bycatch mortality mitigation in the Palau tuna longline fishery 

through observer training in partnership with Palau Marine Law Enforcement Division 

and Bureau of Marine Resources. 

•	 Supported in-water population assessment, genetic stock identification and threat 

assessment of sea turtles at Palmyra and conservation and management capacity and data 

collection efforts in the Marshall Islands. 

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

capture rates of marine turtles. 

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

Ocean high seas fisheries in collaboration with Japan. 

Eastern Pacific: 

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

•	 Conducted satellite telemetry to determine migratory corridors and susceptibility to 

fisheries impacts in the southeastern Pacific Ocean. 

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

Peru; and the Pacific coast of Mexico. 

•	 Supported population assessment efforts in Ecuador and field studies in Peru to determine 

habitat use and characterize human impacts in neritic habitats. 

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

workshops in Peru. 

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

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

•	 Supported education and collaborative work with Mexican halibut gillnet and bottomset 

longline fisheries in Baja California to reduce turtle bycatch. 

Atlantic Ocean: 

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

satellite telemetry and habitat requirements using stable isotope analysis. 

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

DNA analysis, flipper tagging, and satellite telemetry. 

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

turtle abundance and to gather life history data. 

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

the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. 

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

turtle bycatch. 

•	 Implemented and provided training for a Sea Turtle Disentanglement Network in the 

Atlantic Northeast Region to address sea turtle entanglement in pot and other fishing 

gear. 

13
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

•	 Convened a workshop to improve understanding of sea turtle bycatch in vertical lines 

associated with pot/trap and gillnet fisheries. 

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

modifications to scallop dredges. 

•	 Established an inspection program for modified pound net leaders in the Chesapeake Bay 

to ensure gear is consistent with sea turtle requirements. 

•	 Developed a regulation to give NMFS the authority to observe federal, state, or 

recreational fisheries for sea turtle bycatch where no authority currently exists. 

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

green turtle bycatch. 

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

such as the whelk, scallop, and sciaenid bottom trawl fisheries. 

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

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 in longline 

fisheries. 

•	 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, or measures that 

provide comparable or greater protection, in trawl fisheries known to incidentally capture 

sea turtles. 

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

turtle interactions in pelagic and coastal fisheries. 

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

monitoring programs. 

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

Pacific region. 

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

Mexico); 5 (Rangewide) 

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

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

14
 
 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

Hawksbill Sea Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) 

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

Legal Status: Endangered 

Recovery Plan Status: 

Pacific: A final recovery plan was approved on 

January 12, 1998.
 

Atlantic: A final recovery plan was approved on 

December 15, 1993.
 

Species Status: The hawksbill sea turtle is 

severely depleted throughout its range as a result 

of decades of intensive harvest. Today, most 

nesting populations continue to decline, a few 

appear stable (Buck Island Reef National Monument, U.S. Virgin Islands), and a few appear to 

be increasing (Mona Island, Puerto Rico) as a result of years of intensive conservation efforts. 

Major causes of the continued decline include commercial exploitation driven by the continuing 

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

turtles for meat, and destruction and degradation of nesting habitat and coral reef habitats that 

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

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

and South Pacific. 

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

turtles include the following: 

•	 Direct take of all life stages. 

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

shelter and food. 

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

effects. 

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

debris, and effects include interference with metabolism as well as absorption of toxic byproducts. 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 not 

uncommon. 

Photo credit: Becky A. Dayhuff, Environmental Educator 

15
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

•	 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 

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

Conservation Actions: Conservation actions conducted in 2006–2008 for recovery of the 

hawksbill turtle include the following: 

Pacific/Indian Ocean: 

•	 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. 

Central and Western Pacific 

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

Turtles of the IOSEA, and its associated CMP, to provide a similar comprehensive 

framework for the conservation and protection of sea turtles and their habitats in the 

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

passage of a resolution dedicated to reducing bycatch of sea turtles. 

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

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

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

Caledonia, Fiji, and Cook Islands. 

•	 Convened an Annual Hawaii Hawksbill Turtle Recovery Implementation meeting. 

•	 Supported nesting beach monitoring and mitigation activities to remove non-native 

predators of eggs and hatchlings, and satellite and radio telemetry studies of post-nesting 

females in the main Hawaiian Islands. 

•	 Supported capacity building in American Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the 

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

threats to marine turtles and their nesting habitat. 

•	 Supported turtle monitoring programs and capacity building in the Federated States of 

Micronesia and the Republic of Palau. 

•	 Supported in-water population assessment, genetic stock identification, and threat 

assessment of sea turtles at Palmyra and conservation and management capacity and data 

collection efforts in the Marshall Islands. 

•	 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. 

 Eastern Pacific 

•	 Convened the first workshop with sea turtle specialists from Mexico, Guatemala, El 

Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Colombia, and the United States to compile 

current scientific knowledge on eastern Pacific hawksbills, identify priority sites and 

16
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

principal threats, consolidate multinational alliances and projects for conservation, and 

establish conservation goals. 

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

to promote local and regional marine turtle conservation. 

•	 Liaised with Minister of the Environment in Ecuador and the Vice Minister of the 

Environment in El Salvador (the two most important countries for hawksbill nesting in 

the Eastern Pacific) to promote national conservation legislation and enforcement of 

existing laws and regulations regarding the protection of marine turtles. 

•	 Supported and collaborated with Ecuador and El Salvador to deploy the first-ever satellite 

transmitters on adult female hawksbills in the eastern Pacific to determine habitat use, 

migratory movements, and stock boundaries. 

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). 

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

Rica, Mexico, Barbados, Antigua, Nicaragua, and Guadeloupe using improved DNA 

analysis techniques. 

•	 Conducted population identification of foraging turtles from 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. 

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

hawksbill turtle bycatch. 

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. 

17
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

Recovery Priority Number: 1 

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

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

18
 
An estimated 40,000 nesting females 

nested on a single day in 1947. 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle (Lepidochelys kempii) 

Date Listed: December 2, 1970 (35 FR 18319) 

Legal Status: Endangered 

Recovery Plan Status: A final recovery plan for the Kemp’s ridley turtle was approved on 

August 21, 1992. A revised plan is currently under development. 

Species Status: The only major nesting sites for Kemp’s ridley are in Mexico in the state of 

Tamaulipas, with the majority of nesting occurring along the coast at Rancho Nuevo. Although 

still significantly decreased in number from the mid-20th century, the trend in the number of 

nests documented at the Mexican nesting beaches has been increasing over the past decade, with 

17,882 nests documented in 2008 (Figure 3). A small nesting assemblage is also found in the 

United States, primarily in Texas, 6 nests were documented in 1996 and a record 195 nests were 

documented in 2008. As a result of intensive bi-lateral conservation efforts, including full 

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

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

ridley population is in the early stages of recovery. 

Kemp's Ridley Nesting Trends 

0 

10000 

20000 

30000 

40000 

50000 

19471978198019821984198619881990199219941996199820002002200420062008 

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– 2008. 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. 

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 and entanglement: Kemp’s ridley turtles can ingest a wide variety of 

marine debris, and effects include interference with metabolism as well as absorption of 

toxic by-products. They can also become entangled in marine debris, such as “ghost” 

fishing gear. 

19
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

•	 Vessel strikes: Especially in areas where recreational and/or commercial vessel traffic 

(small, medium, and/or large vessels) is intense, propeller and collision injuries are not 

uncommon. 

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

entrapped primarily along the U.S. Atlantic coast. 

•	 Prey limitation: Overfishing may lead to a reduction of key prey species preferred by 

Kemp’s ridleys. 

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

effects and hopper dredges can entrain and kill turtles. 

•	 Oil production: 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 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 2006–2008 for recovery of the 

Kemp’s ridley turtle include the following: 

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

Nuevo, Mexico using DNA analysis. 

•	 Supported infrastructure maintenance, stranding surveys, and provided monitoring 

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

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

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

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

•	 Investigated protocol and reporting form for documenting human interactions in stranded 

turtles. 

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

Kemp’s ridley bycatch. 

•	 Convened a workshop to improve understanding of sea turtle bycatch in vertical lines 

associated with pot/trap and gillnet fisheries. 

•	 Established an inspection program for modified pound net leaders in the Chesapeake Bay 

to ensure gear is consistent with sea turtle requirements. 

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

•	 Developed a regulation to give NMFS the authority to observe federal, state, or 

recreational fisheries, where no authority currently exists, for sea turtle bycatch.
 

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

modifications to scallop dredges and conducted research on TEDs suitable for use in nonshrimp trawl fisheries. 

20
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

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

turtle include the following: 

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

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

for expansion of in-water conservation and research efforts. 

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

for recovery are being met. 

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

size and structure. 

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

environment. 

•	 Identify important marine habitats. 

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

Recovery Priority Number: 5 

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

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

activities. 

21
 
 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

Leatherback Sea Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) 

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

Legal Status: Endangered 

Recovery Plan Status: 

Pacific: A final recovery plan was approved 

on January 12, 1998.
 

Atlantic: A final recovery plan was approved 

on April 6, 1992. 

Species Status: In the Pacific, the number 

of nesting leatherback turtles is declining at 

all key nesting beaches except JamursbaMedi Beach, Indonesia, where there is a 

long-term decline in the nesting population, but a short-term (since 1999) stability in nesting 

numbers. There is growing evidence to suggest a significant decline in leatherback turtle nesting 

abundance in Papua New Guinea and Solomon Islands over the past 30 years. Predation by pigs 

and dogs as well as continued direct harvest of eggs and beach erosion remain significant 

impacts to the Western Pacific population. Leatherbacks were extirpated from Malaysia within 

the past decade or more, 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: 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 not 

uncommon. 

•	 Marine debris and entanglement: Leatherbacks can ingest a wide variety of marine 

debris, and effects include direct effects as well as secondary effects such as interference 

with metabolism as well as absorption of toxic by-products. Turtles can become 

entangled in marine debris, such as “ghost” fishing gear and discarded shipping and 

packing materials. 

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

gas and oil structure removal and 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. 

Photo credit: S.R. Livingstone, University of Glasgow 

22
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

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

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

Conservation Actions: Conservation actions conducted in 2006–2008 for recovery of the 

leatherback turtle include the following: 

Pacific/Indian Ocean: 

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

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

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

foraging strategies of leatherbacks in the Eastern and Western Pacific. 

•	 Evaluated leatherback turtle population trends and designed and evaluated conservation 

strategies via stochastic simulation models. 

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

projects. 

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

collaboration with six international agencies. 

•	 Convened a workshop with partners from government, non-governmental organizations, 

and the private sector to develop a Pacific leatherback conservation action plan 

incorporating coastal fisheries management and nesting beach conservation. 

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

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

•	 Promoted “best practices” in the major longline fleets operating in the Pacific. 

•	 Reduced leatherback 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 leatherbacks; and use of disentangling and dehooking equipment such as dip nets, line cutters, and de-hookers. 

•	 Collaborated with foreign partners to export longline fishery technologies through 

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

•	 Conducted research to test longline fishing gear modifications to reduce bycatch and 

mortality. 

•	 Convened a workshop to review and assess the results of all U.S. longline bycatch 

reduction efforts to date, including the available information on the effects of circle hooks 

on bycatch species and target catch, and to use this information to (1) identify best gear 

and fishing practices and (2) develop an action plan to direct NMFS’ domestic and 

international marine turtle longline bycatch reduction efforts. 

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

Central and Western Pacific 

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

Turtles of the IOSEA, and its associated CMP, to provide a similar comprehensive 

framework for the conservation and protection of sea turtles and their habitats in the 

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

passage of a resolution dedicated to reducing bycatch of sea turtles. 

23
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

•	 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.
 

•	 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 Palau, Indonesia, Vietnam, and 

New Caledonia. 

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

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

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

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

migratory movements and pelagic habitat use. 

•	 Supported work with Kei Island (Indonesia) villagers to reduce and/or eliminate direct 

harvest of adult leatherbacks in marine and coastal habitats. 

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

Ocean high seas fisheries in collaboration with Japan. 

Eastern Pacific 

•	 Convened a workshop on swordfish and leatherback use of temperate habitat (SLUTH) 

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

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

integrate fisheries management and protected resources conservation. 

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

California and conducted capture, tagging, and satellite tracking of foraging leatherbacks 

off central California. 

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

California ecosystem.
 

•	 Conducted first-ever process-oriented cruise of the U.S. west coast to determine the 

habitat requirements and environmental drivers that dictate leatherback use of temperate 

habitat. 

•	 Supported monitoring and protection of leatherbacks nesting in Mexico. 

•	 Supported longline observer programs in Chile and Peru. 

Atlantic Ocean: 

•	 Conducted population identification of by-caught, foraging, and stranded turtles using 

DNA analysis, flipper tagging, and satellite telemetry. 

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

North Atlantic. 

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

leatherbacks in the Atlantic, found in Canada. 

•	 Held a bilateral meeting to coordinate with Canada solely on sea turtle conservation 

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

leatherback turtles in Canadian waters and contributed to the development of recovery 

plans for leatherbacks in Canada. 

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

Atlantic coast. 

24
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

•	 Developed a regulation to give NMFS the authority to observe federal, state, or 

recreational fisheries, where no authority currently exists, for sea turtle bycatch.
 

•	 Implemented and provided training for a Sea Turtle Disentanglement Network in the 

Atlantic Northeast Region to address sea turtle entanglement in pot and other fishing 

gear. 

•	 Convened a workshop to improve understanding of sea turtle bycatch in vertical lines 

associated with pot/trap and gillnet fisheries. 

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

such as the whelk, scallop, and sciaenid bottom trawl fisheries. 

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

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

participants to gather and assess data available on Atlantic leatherback turtles. 

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

bycatch. 

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

turtle include the following: 

•	 Reduce bycatch in commercial and artisanal fisheries. 

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

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

trawl gear known to take turtles. 

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

pot gear in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. 

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

turtle bycatch 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 on nesting beaches and in foraging 

habitats. 

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

•	 Support nesting beach programs, including outreach and education, to promote increased 

hatchling production and to reduce killing of nesting females. 

Recovery Priority Number: 1 

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

the critical status of this globally listed species and is based on a high magnitude of threat, a high 

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

25
 
 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Caretta caretta) 

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

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: 

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

Atlantic: A final revised recovery plan was approved on December 31, 2008. 

Species Status: In the Pacific, loggerhead nesting populations are at best stable, if not declining, 

at the major nesting areas in Japan and Australia. Approximately 2,000 females are estimated to 

nest annually in the Pacific (Table 2, Figure 4). North Pacific loggerheads nest exclusively in 

Japan where monitoring began in the 1950s on some beaches and expanded to all known nesting 

beaches beginning in 1990. In 2008, 10,837 nests were documented, which was the highest 

recorded number of nests since 1990, whether this increase will be sustained is unknown. 

Nesting also occurs in New Caledonia, although population trends are unknown. There is no 

loggerhead nesting in the U.S. Pacific. 

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 

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 United States 

has fluctuated between 47,000 and 90,000 nests per year over the last decade. Results from 

standardized nesting beach surveys in Florida have demonstrated a significant decline in nesting 

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

has also declined, although not as significantly as in Florida. In Mexico, 1,000–2,000 

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

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

environment affecting loggerhead turtles include the following: 

•	 Bycatch in domestic and international commercial and artisanal fisheries: Fisheries 

known to interact with loggerheads include trawl, gillnet, longline, hook and line, purse 

seine, pound net, dredge, and pot/trap fisheries. 

•	 Directed take of immature loggerheads outside the United States. 

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

and effects include direct effects as well as secondary effects such as interference with 

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

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

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 2006–2008 

•	 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. No. of Nests 

12000 

10000 

8000 

6000 

4000 

2000 

0 

19981999200020012002200320042005200620072008 

Year 

Figure 4. Annual loggerhead nests documented on Japanese beaches, 1998– 

2008 (Sea Turtle Association of Japan, unpublished data). 

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

beaches, 1989–2008. 

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

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

•	 Limitation of prey: Commercial fishing may lead to reduction of key prey species for 

loggerheads. 

27
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

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

effects and hopper dredges can entrain and kill turtles. 

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

gas and oil structure removal and 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. 

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

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

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

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

Conservation Actions: Conservation actions conducted in 2006–2008 for recovery of the 

loggerhead turtle include the following: 

Pacific/Indian Ocean: 

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

bycaught, foraging, and stranded loggerheads using DNA analysis. 

•	 Evaluated loggerhead turtle population trends and designed and evaluated conservation 

strategies via stochastic simulation models. 

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

fleets (Hawaii-based) 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. 

•	 Conducted research to understand longline gear and bait interactions and to evaluate 

options to reduce bycatch and mortality. 

•	 Investigated migration routes and preferred oceanic habitats by attaching satellite 

transmitters and tracking loggerheads in the Pacific. 

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

collaboration with six international agencies. 

•	 Collaborated with foreign partners to export longline fishery technologies through 

education and outreach, circle hook exchange program, and fishing gear experiments in 

Ecuador, Mexico, Guatemala, Costa Rica, Peru, Brazil, Columbia, Chile, Korea, 

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

•	 Convened a workshop to review and assess the results of all U.S. longline bycatch 

reduction efforts to date, including the available information on the effects of circle hooks 

on bycatch species and target catch, and to use this information to (1) identify best gear 

and fishing practices and (2) develop an action plan to direct NMFS’ domestic and 

international marine turtle longline bycatch reduction efforts. 

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

28
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

Western and Central Pacific 

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

Turtles of the IOSEA, and its associated CMP, to provide a similar comprehensive 

framework for the conservation and protection of sea turtles and their habitats in the 

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

passage of a resolution dedicated to reducing bycatch of sea turtles. 

•	 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.
 

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

Ocean high seas fisheries in collaboration with Japan. 

•	 Supported monitoring and protection efforts of loggerhead nesting beaches in Japan in 

collaboration with the Sea Turtle Association of Japan. 

•	 Supported sea turtle bycatch mortality mitigation in the Palau tuna longline fishery 

through observer training in partnership with Palau Marine Law Enforcement Division 

and Bureau of Marine Resources. 

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

capture rates of marine turtles and supported a trial observer program in Indonesian 

longline and trawl fisheries. 

•	 Supported an education and outreach coordinator to promote loggerhead sea turtle 

conservation and management concerns in New Caledonia. 

East Pacific 

•	 Performed aerial surveys off Baja California, Mexico to quantify population abundance 

and distribution of loggerhead turtles in off-shore waters of Baja. 

•	 Supported education and collaborative work to reduce bycatch of sea turtle in Mexican 

gillnet fisheries. 

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

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

•	 Conducted capacity training exercises for fishers and boat captains from Peruvian 

artisanal fleets to educate them on safe handling and resuscitation techniques for 

comatose turtles incidentally captured in gillnet and longline gear. 

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

longline fisheries on loggerhead turtles. 

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. 

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

such as the flynet, whelk, and scallop trawl fisheries, and conducted gear research to 

develop bycatch reduction solutions for scallop dredge fisheries. 

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

•	 Established an inspection program for modified pound net leaders in the Chesapeake Bay 

to ensure gear is consistent with sea turtle requirements. 

•	 Convened a workshop to improve understanding of sea turtle bycatch in vertical lines 

associated with pot/trap and gillnet fisheries. 

29
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

•	 Developed a regulation to give NMFS the authority to observe federal, state, or 

recreational fisheries, where no authority currently exists, for sea turtle bycatch.
 

•	 Continued fishery observer programs to monitor, report, and estimate loggerhead 

bycatch. 

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

the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico. 

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

southwest Florida. 

•	 Supported in-water population studies in Maryland, New York, and Florida. 

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

foraging, stranded, and bycaught loggerheads using DNA analysis, flipper tagging, and 

satellite telemetry. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: Priority recovery actions needed for the loggerhead sea 

turtle include the following: 

•	 Reduce incidental capture of loggerheads in domestic and international commercial and 

artisanal fisheries. 

•	 Promote the use of large circle hooks in global longline fisheries and continue to identify 

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

•	 Investigate the effects of commercial fishing on loggerhead prey distribution and 

abundance. 

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

habitats. 

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

conservation measures, wherever the distribution of loggerhead sea turtles overlaps with 

the use of trawling gear known to take turtles. 

Recovery Priority Number: 5 

The recovery priority number for the loggerhead sea turtle is 5. This represents a moderate 

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

activities. 

30
 
 

 

 

 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

Olive Ridley Sea Turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea) 

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

Legal Status: 

Endangered (breeding colony populations 

of Pacific coast of Mexico) 

Threatened (rangewide except where listed 

as endangered)
 

Recovery Plan Status: A recovery plan 

for the U.S. Pacific populations of the olive 

ridley sea turtle was approved on January 

12, 1998. 

Species Status: The olive ridley is the 

most abundant sea turtle in the world and 

population trends vary among geographic 

regions as well as within regions. The behavior of olive ridleys, primarily nesting as an arribada 

(a mass arrival of turtles to the nesting beach), makes it difficult to precisely measure annual 

nesting. The status of the primary nesting populations of the olive ridley in the Pacific varies 

from declining to increasing (Table 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. 

Olive Ridley Arribada in Mexico 

Photo credit: Michael P. Jensen
 

Subpopulation No. of Females Nesting Annually Trend 

Mexico – Playa Escobilla 525,000 (nests) Increasing 

Costa Rica – Playa Ostional 450,000 - 600,000 Unknown4 

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

Guatemala 4,300,000 (eggs) Declining 

Nicaragua Unknown Unknown 

India (Gahirmatha) 150,000 – 200,000 Mixed5 

Indonesia Scattered Unknown 

Malaysia Scattered Declining 

Threats and Impacts: Threats and impacts found in the marine environment affecting olive 

ridley turtles include the following: 

•	 Direct harvest. 

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

olive ridleys include gillnets, longline fisheries, purse seine fisheries, trawl fisheries, 

gillnets, and hook and line. 

4

 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.

5

 Although there has been no drastic decline in the nesting population in the past 25 years, there are differences in trends between decades. Data 

from the 1990s show the population is declining or on the verge of a decline, and no arribadas have been documented in recent years.
 

31
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

•	 Vessel strikes: Especially in areas where recreational and/or commercial vessel traffic 

(small, medium, and/or large vessels) is intense, propeller and collision injuries are not 

uncommon. 

•	 Global climate change and sea level rise 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: 

Pacific/Indian Ocean: 

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

collaboration with six international agencies. 

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

foraging, stranded, and olive ridleys caught as bycatch using DNA analysis. 

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

Network, including genetic sampling and analysis of age classes. 

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

•	 Conducted experiments to reduce bycatch and mortality in longline fisheries including 

testing “stealth gear,” blue-dyed bait, deep day-time fishing, and new circle hook designs 

in domestic and international fisheries. 

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

through education and outreach, circle hook exchange program, and fishing gear 

experiments in Ecuador, Mexico, Guatemala, Costa Rica, Peru, Brazil, Columbia, Chile, 

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

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

turtle interactions in Pacific Ocean high seas fisheries. 

•	 Continued fishery observer programs to monitor, report, and estimate olive ridley 

bycatch. 

•	 Developed a regulation to give NMFS the authority to observe federal, state, or 

recreational fisheries, where no authority currently exists, for sea turtle bycatch.
 

•	 Convened a workshop to review and assess the results of all U.S. longline bycatch 

reduction efforts to date, including the available information on the effects of circle hooks 

on bycatch species and target catch, and to use this information to (1) identify best gear 

and fishing practices and (2) develop an action plan to direct NMFS’ domestic and 

international marine turtle longline bycatch reduction efforts. 

Western and Central Pacific 

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

Turtles of the IOSEA, and its associated CMP, to provide a similar comprehensive 

framework for the conservation and protection of sea turtles and their habitats in the 

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

passage of a resolution dedicated to reducing bycatch of sea turtles. 

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

fleets (currently Hawaii-based only) by requiring large circle hooks combined with nonsquid bait; requiring proper handling of hooked and entangled turtles; and requiring use 

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

32
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

•	 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.
 

•	 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 sea turtle bycatch mortality mitigation in the Palau tuna longline fishery 

through observer training in partnership with Palau Marine Law Enforcement Division 

and Bureau of Marine Resources. 

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

capture rates of marine turtles and 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. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: Priority recovery actions needed for the olive ridley sea 

turtle include the following: 

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

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

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

fisheries. 

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

Recovery Priority Number: 5 (Breeding colony populations of Pacific coast of Mexico); 5 

(Rangewide) 

The recovery priority number for the olive ridley sea turtle is 5. This represents a moderate 

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

activities. 

33
 
 

 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

PACIFIC SALMON RECOVERY 

Overview for 2006–2008 

Salmon and Steelhead Listed under the Endangered Species Act 

Fifty-two “species”— DPSs or ESUs6—of Pacific salmon and steelhead have been identified on 

the U.S. West Coast. Of these 52 species, 28 are currently protected under the ESA (see “Listing 

Actions” below)—six are listed as endangered and 22 as threatened. Eighteen occur solely in the 

NMFS Northwest Region, nine occur solely in the NMFS Southwest Region, and the range of 

one ESU—the Southern Oregon/Northern California coast coho salmon—overlaps both Regions 

(Table 4). These species migrate along the West Coast as they grow to adults, before returning 

to the freshwater rivers where they were hatched. Figure 6 shows the distribution of all ESAlisted Pacific salmon ESUs and steelhead DPSs by recovery domain. 

Table 4. Endangered Species Act (ESA) Listing Status of Pacific Salmon and Steelhead. 

Recovery Planning Domain ESU/DPS Current ESA Listing Status 

Puget Sound 

Puget Sound Chinook Threatened 

Hood Canal Summer chum Threatened 

Ozette Lake sockeye Threatened 

Puget Sound steelhead Threatened 

Willamette/Lower Columbia 

Upper Willamette River Chinook Threatened 

Lower Columbia River Chinook Threatened 

Lower Columbia River steelhead Threatened 

Lower Columbia River coho Threatened 

Columbia River chum Threatened 

Upper Willamette River steelhead Threatened 

Interior Columbia 

Upper Columbia River spring Chinook Endangered 

Snake River spring/summer Chinook Threatened 

Snake River fall Chinook Threatened 

Upper Columbia River steelhead Endangered 

Middle Columbia River steelhead Threatened 

Snake River Basin steelhead Threatened 

Snake River sockeye Endangered 

Oregon/N. California Coasts Oregon Coast coho Threatened 

Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast coho Threatened 

North-central California Coast 

Central California coast coho Endangered 

Northern California steelhead Threatened 

California coastal Chinook Threatened 

Central California coast steelhead Threatened 

South-central/Southern California Coast South-central California coast steelhead Threatened 

Southern California steelhead Endangered 

California Central Valley 

Sacramento River winter-run Chinook Endangered 

Central Valley spring-run Chinook Threatened 

Central Valley steelhead Threatened 

6

 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 FWS. 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 2006–2008 

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

35
 
 

 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

Recovery Planning Efforts for Pacific Salmon and Steelhead 

Recovery planning is active for every listed species of Pacific salmon. Table 5 summarizes the 

status of ESA recovery plans for Pacific salmon and steelhead. NMFS believes it is critically 

important for the Pacific salmon recovery planning process to partner with the numerous federal, 

state, regional, tribal, local, and private conservation efforts already underway. Building on this 

collaborative effort, the agency has established a recovery planning process to include its 

partners and, to the extent practicable, capitalize on these ongoing efforts.7 Through these local 

initiatives, salmon recovery plans bring people, processes, and resources together to guide 

investments toward a common goal of self-sustaining, viable species of salmon and steelhead. 

Table 5. Status of ESA Recovery Plan Development Status for Pacific Salmon and Steelhead. 

Recovery Planning Domain ESU/DPS 

Recovery 

Plan 

underway 

Co-manager 

& peer 

review 

completed 

8

Interim 

Regional 

Recovery 

Plan 

Recovery 

Plan 

Proposed 

in Federal 

Register 

Final ESA 

Recovery 

Plan 

Complete 

Puget Sound 

Puget Sound Chinook X 

Hood Canal Summer chum X 

Ozette Lake sockeye X 

Puget Sound steelhead X 

Willamette/Lower Columbia 

Upper Willamette River Chinook X 

Lower Columbia River Chinook X 

Lower Columbia River steelhead X 

Lower Columbia River coho X 

Columbia River chum X 

Upper Willamette River steelhead X 

Interior Columbia 

Upper Columbia River spring 

Chinook X 

Snake River spring/summer Chinook X 

Snake River fall Chinook X 

Upper Columbia River steelhead X 

Middle Columbia River steelhead X 

Snake River Basin steelhead X 

Snake River sockeye X 

Oregon/N. California Coasts 

Oregon Coast coho X 

Southern Oregon/Northern California 

Coast coho X 

North-central California Coast 

Central California coast coho X 

Northern California steelhead X 

California coastal Chinook X 

Central California coast steelhead X 

South-central/Southern California Coast 

South-central California coast 

steelhead X 

Southern California steelhead X 

California Central Valley 

Sacramento River winter-run 

Chinook X 

Central Valley spring-run Chinook X 

Central Valley steelhead X 

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

involvement, NMFS organized the 28 listed species into eight recovery areas or “domains.” The 

four recovery domains in the Northwest Region are Puget Sound, Willamette/Lower Columbia, 

7

 For more information on recovery activities, visit NMFS salmon recovery websites at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-RecoveryPlanning/index.cfm and http://swr.nmfs.noaa.gov/salmon.htm. 8

 An Interim Regional Recovery Plan addresses portions of ESUs and DPSs and meets the requirements of the ESA for those areas. It has been 

announced in the Federal Register. It is interim until a final plan can be developed that addresses the entire ESU and DPS. It includes a locally 

developed plan with stakeholder buy-in and a NMFS supplement that clarifies and expands on ESA recovery requirements. 

36
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

Interior Columbia, and Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast. The four domains in the 

Southwest Region are the Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast (SONCC), North-Central 

California Coast, California Central Valley, and South-Central/Southern California Coast (Figure 

6). Recovery planning for the 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 criteria; provide scientific support to local and regional recovery planning efforts; and 

provide scientific evaluations and peer review of recovery plans. In the Northwest and 

Southwest Regions, the TRTs have developed either draft or final viability criteria for all listed 

species except Puget Sound steelhead (which was listed in May 2007). 

In all of the Northwest Region’s recovery domains except Idaho, local 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 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, to assess limiting factors, and to 

prioritize and sequence actions for addressing the limiting factors. 

Listing Actions 

On May 11, 2007, NMFS issued a final determination listing Puget Sound steelhead as a 

threatened species (72 FR 26722). On February 11, 2008, NMFS issued a final determination to 

list the Oregon Coast coho salmon ESU as a threatened species under the ESA (73 FR 7816). 

The final listing determination was issued in compliance with a ruling by the U.S. District Court 

for the District of Oregon (Trout Unlimited v. Lohn, Civ. No. 06-01493 ST (D. Oreg., October 9, 

2007)) invalidating NMFS’ earlier decision in January 2006 not to list Oregon Coast coho (71 

FR 3033). Table 5 (above) provides a complete roster of West Coast salmon and steelhead 

currently listed under the ESA. 

Critical Habitat 

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

steelhead. Section 3 of the ESA defines critical habitat as (1) specific areas within the 

geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing, on which are found those 

physical or biological features that are essential to the conservation of the listed species and that 

may require special management considerations or protection, and (2) specific areas outside the 

geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing that are essential for the 

conservation of a listed species. In designating critical habitat our regulations direct us to focus 

on “primary constituent elements,” in identifying these physical or biological features. Section 4 

of the ESA requires us to consider the economic impacts, impacts on national security, and other 

relevant impacts of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. NMFS may exclude any 

area from critical habitat if NMFS determines that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the 

37
 
 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

benefits of specifying such area as part of the critical habitat, unless the failure to designate such 

an area will result in the extinction of the species. Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires that each 

Federal agency shall, in consultation with, and with the assistance of, NMFS, ensure that any 

action authorized, funded or carried out by such agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of its 

designated critical habitat. A critical habitat designation does not set up a preserve or refuge, and 

applies only when federal funding, permits, or projects are involved. Critical habitat 

requirements do not apply to citizens engaged in activities on private land that do not involve a 

federal agency. 

Critical habitat is presently designated for all ESA-listed salmon ESUs and steelhead DPSs, 

except Puget Sound steelhead and Lower Columbia River coho. The specific areas designated in 

the Northwest Region include approximately 30,085 miles of lake, riverine, and estuarine habitat 

in the three northwestern states, as well as approximately 2,312 miles of marine nearshore habitat 

in Puget Sound, Washington. The specific areas designated as critical habitat in the Southwest 

Region include approximately 10,052 miles of riverine habitat and 470 square miles of estuarine 

habitat within the geographic areas occupied by the listed species. In February 2008, NMFS 

designated critical habitat for the Oregon Coast coho ESU (73 FR 7816), including 6,568 miles 

of riverine habitat, and 15 square miles of lake habitat. 

Species Status for Pacific Salmon 

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

ESA requires that, at least every 5 years, NMFS shall conduct a review of all ESA-listed species 

and determine whether any species should: (1) be removed from such list; (2) be changed in 

status from an endangered species to a threatened species; or (3) be changed in status from a 

threatened species to an endangered species. In 2010 NMFS will initiate 5-year reviews for 26 

listed salmon ESUs and steelhead DPSs. The remaining two listed species will receive status 

reviews in 2012 and 2013. These reviews will consider information that has become available 

since the most recent listing determinations, and make recommendations as to whether there is 

substantial information to suggest that a change in listing status may be warranted. For those 

listed species that may warrant a change in status and consistent with Section 4(a) of the Act, 

NMFS will conduct a formal ESA status review. 

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. Updated status and trends 

information is available for a few ESUs/DPSs and is included as appropriate. The recent 

abundance estimates provided for most ESUs/DPSs are those that were available at the time of 

the last biennial report (2004–2006).9

 Status and trend information will be updated as part of the 

5-year reviews being initiated in 2010. Estimates of recent trends (i.e., whether an ESU is 

9

 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 20th century conditions) and they may have a considerable margin of error. These estimates were developed by NMFS 

using available information and professional judgment. Recent abundance estimates represent a 5-year geometric mean based on 2001–2005 or 

2000–2004 ESU-level abundance estimates as compiled by NMFS for the previous biennial report (2004–2006). The sources of the abundance 

data varied among and within ESUs, and the totals presented represent only rough estimates. Qualitative assessments of ESU/DPS-level trends 

were obtained from the FY 2009 Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund Annual Report to Congress and reflect the trends in the most recent 10 

years of ESU-level abundance estimates available. 

38
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

increasing, decreasing, or remaining stable in abundance over time) are based on the most recent 

10 years of available data. Also, the reported trends in abundance may reflect the influence of 

hatchery fish that spawn in the wild, and therefore do not necessarily indicate trends in the 

natural production upon which listing decisions and recovery criteria are based. Thus, the trend 

is a useful but incomplete indicator of ESU status and will be placed in the context of additional 

indicators when a formal status assessment is conducted. 

Limiting Factors and Threats Box 1. Impact of Hatchery Bred-Fish 

Population declines and extirpations of Pacific Potential negative aspects of hatchery-bred salmon and steelhead are the result of numerous fish include competition for food, altered 

factors affecting habitat (such as hydropower genetic diversity of natural populations and 

development, land development, resource changes in fitness and productivity, 

domestication, outbreeding depression, extraction, timber harvest practices, and other homogenization, and reduction in effective land uses), as well as effects of harvest, hatchery population size. Hatchery fish can also benefit 

practices (see Box 1), natural variation in ocean- recovery by reducing extinction risk and/or by 

promoting conservation when combined with climate conditions, and other factors such as actions that reduce limiting factors. Hatchery predation and the introduction of non-native fish can augment individuals from native 

species. These threats and limiting factors affect populations to support harvest and satisfy 

tribal treaty fishing rights. 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 sitespecific actions to address those factors. 

Human Population Growth 

Box 2. Impact of Dams and Human Population Growth Regional population growth is 

In addition to eliminating accessibility to habitat, dams affect habitat projected to continue and

quality through changes in river hydrology, temperature profile, poses a potential threat to downstream gravel recruitment, and the movement of large woody listed salmon and steelhead in debris. Many of the lower reaches of rivers and their tributaries in Puget 

Sound have been dramatically altered by urban development. both the Northwest and 

Urbanization and suburbanization have resulted in the loss of historical Southwest Regions. land cover in exchange for large areas of imperious surface (buildings, According to the U.S. Census roads, parking lots, etc.). Bureau, California’s

The loss of wetland and riparian habitat has dramatically changed the population alone is expected hydrology of many urban streams. This shift in hydrology reduces to increase from 34 million in floodplain connectivity and function, which increases flood frequency and 

peak flow during storm events, and decreases groundwater-driven 2000 to more than 48 million 

summer flows. Flood events result in gravel scour, bank erosion, and by 2030. Over the same sediment deposition. Land development for agricultural purposes has also period, the combined altered the historical land cover. However, because much of this 

development took place in river floodplains, it has directly affected river populations of Oregon and

morphology. River braiding and sinuosity have been reduced by the Washington are expected to 

construction of dikes, hardening of banks with riprap, and channelizing increase from 9 million to 

the mainstem. Constriction of rivers, especially during high-flow events, over 13 million. The increases the likelihood of gravel scour and dislocation of rearing juvenile 

fish. implications of this growth 

include increased demand for 

39
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

land, water, and hydroelectricity, all of which have the potential to exacerbate factors that limit 

species’ viability. 

Climate Change 

Climate change is a potentially significant threat to the recovery of listed species. Changes in 

climate may adversely affect habitat quality and quantity, water quantity (lower summer 

streamflows), and water quality (higher summer water temperatures). Warmer temperatures will 

result in more precipitation falling as rain rather than snow. In addition, snowpack will diminish 

and the timing of stream flow will be altered. Changes in environmental conditions could affect 

salmon and steelhead health and survival in the ocean through a variety of mechanisms, 

including increased ocean temperatures, increased stratification of some waters, changes in the 

upwelling season, shifts in the distribution of salmon and steelhead, and increased acidity, among 

others. 

ESA Activities Contributing to Recovery 

Many federal and non-federal actions are regulated by the ESA in order to help alleviate the 

many threats to listed species. The contributions of the ESA’s statutory and regulatory tools are 

summarized below. 

4(d) Rule Activities 

ESA section 9(a)(1) prohibits “take” and import/export of, and commercial transactions 

involving, all species listed as endangered. “Take” is defined under the ESA as “to harass, harm, 

pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such 

conduct” (Section 3(19)). In the case of threatened species, section 4(d) of the ESA directs the 

Secretary of Commerce to issue regulations he or she deems necessary and advisable for the 

conservation of the species. The 4(d) protective regulations may prohibit, with respect to 

threatened species, some or all of the acts prohibited under section 9(a)(1) of the ESA with 

respect to endangered species. These 9(a)(1) prohibitions and 4(d) regulations apply to all 

individuals, organizations, and agencies subject to U.S. jurisdiction. Under section 4(d), NMFS 

has tailored specific “limits” or exemptions from the take prohibitions applicable to threatened 

Pacific salmonids to authorize certain activities, provided they are consistent with conservation 

and recovery needs. The Northwest and Southwest Regions have approved hundreds of 

programs and activities under the 4(d) protective regulations, ensuring that hatchery and harvest 

management plans, resource management plans, road maintenance activities, and tribal resource 

management plans benefit threatened West Coast salmonids. 

NMFS published a final rule for Oregon Coast coho on February 11, 2008 (73 FR 7816) and 

Puget Sound steelhead on September 25, 2008 (73 FR 55451) adopting the same 4(d) protective 

regulations that apply to other threatened Pacific salmonids. 

Section 7 Activities 

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

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

salmon. In FY 2007 and FY 2008, the Northwest Region conducted 1,155 section 7 

consultations, and the Southwest Region conducted 558. These consultations ensure federal 

actions are conducted in ways unlikely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or 

40
 
 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

to adversely modify or destroy critical habitat. The scope of section 7 consultations includes 

actions related to land and water management, transportation, restoration, fill and removal of 

materials in stream channels, hydropower operations, hatchery operations, and fishery 

management. 

Section 10 Activities 

Section 10 of the ESA provides authorization for take that may occur as a part of otherwise 

lawful activities carried out by non-federal entities (e.g., timber harvest, water supply 

management, and other resource extraction and land management activities) or as part of 

scientific research or enhancement activities. Such authorization allows those conducting such 

activities to proceed with the certainty of ESA compliance and ensures that any adverse impacts 

caused to listed species are being avoided, minimized, mitigated, and monitored. 

Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund 

The Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund (PCSRF) was established by Congress in FY 2000 to 

assist state, local, and tribal salmon recovery efforts. The goal of the PCSRF is to make 

significant contributions to the conservation and restoration of healthy and sustainable Pacific 

salmon runs and the habitats on which they 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 toward the long-term goal of salmon recovery. Since the program’s 

inception in FY 2000, Congress has appropriated a total of $544.7 million for restoration projects 

in Washington, Oregon, California, and Idaho. The states have provided over 33 percent 

matching funds to these federal funds. Since FY 2000, over 7,900 projects have been funded for 

habitat protection and restoration; watershed and sub-basin planning and assessment; research, 

monitoring, and evaluation; and public outreach and education. Over 5,400 instream and 

riparian stream miles have been treated, over 2,100 barriers to fish passage have been removed 

opening over 4,200 miles of habitat, and over 645,000 acres of habitat have been created, treated, 

or protected. The 2009 PCSRF Annual Report to Congress reports on the actions of the PCSRF 

from FY 2000 to 2008. The report is available online at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/SalmonRecovery-Planning/PCSRF/Index.cfm. 

41
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

Salmon Recovery in the Northwest 

Lower Columbia River Coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch) 

Date Listed: March 24, 1999 (64 FR 14308); reaffirmed June 28, 2005 (70 FR 37160) 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: Recovery planning is underway in both Oregon and Washington 

portions of this ESU, with a draft recovery plan expected in the fall of 2009. 

Species Status: The estimated historical abundance (circa 1900) of the Lower Columbia River 

coho ESU is 850,000 to 1.1 million. At the time of the 2004–2006 Biennial Report, the mean 

natural-origin abundance was estimated to be approximately 24,000, and the mean combined 

abundance (including natural- and hatchery-origin fish) of the ESU was estimated to be 

approximately 240,300. The last formal review of ESU status, completed in 2005, indicated that 

the abundance and productivity of this ESU had remained unchanged since the time of listing. 

There is insufficient status and trend information for the Lower Columbia River coho ESU to 

assess recent trends. NMFS will conduct an ESA 5-year review of this ESU in 2010 and will 

update the available status and trend information at that time. 

Limiting Factors and Threats: Limiting factors and threats 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 related effects (See Box 1). 

•	 Harvest related effects. 

Conservation Actions: During 2006–2008, key conservation actions included: 

•	 Hydropower operational changes and agreements for dam removal (See Box 3). 

•	 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 (see 

Box 4). 

•	 Hatchery reforms: Hatchery 

reforms have included integrating 

some coho hatchery programs with 

local natural-origin populations to 

Box 3. FERC Re-licensing 

NMFS continued implementation of Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission (FERC) Re-licensing Settlement 

Agreements for the Cowlitz, Lewis, and Clackamas rivers. 

These agreements included reintroduction efforts into 

previously blocked habitat, improved flow releases, dam 

passage survival studies, plans for passage improvements, 

hatchery reforms, and habitat improvements. In addition, 

implementation of FERC de-commissioning settlement 

agreements resulted in removal of Marmot Dam in 2007 and 

the Little Sandy River Dam in 2008, restoring unimpeded 

passage to upstream habitat and in actions to improve fish 

passage conditions in the Hood River, including plans for 

removal of Powerdale Dam in 2010. 

42
 
 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

Box 4. Forest Management 

The Northwest Forest Plan Aquatic Conservation Strategy 

continued in 2006–2008. The strategy is designed to 

conserve and restore salmon and steelhead habitat and 

to provide an anchor for federal lands’ contribution to 

salmon recovery. In addition, implementation of the 

Forest Practices Habitat Conservation Plan, which covers 

9.3 million acres of private timber land in Washington 

and which NMFS approved in 2005, is well underway, 

formally recognizing the conservation value of state 

forestry practice rules to the recovery of listed salmonids. 

increase abundance and 

reduce adverse impacts of 

hatcheries, program 

closures, and production 

changes. Hatchery coho 

continue to be externally 

marked so fisheries can 

target hatchery coho and to 

allow identification of 

hatchery and wild fish at 

weirs and traps, on the 

spawning grounds, and during broodstock collection. The Hatchery Scientific Review 

Group evaluated hatchery programs to identify additional reforms needed to ensure that 

hatcheries benefit conservation efforts and reduce risks to the ESU, and is expected to 

issue a final report in early 2009. NMFS and co-managers will use this report, along with 

additional science-based recommendations, to identify and implement additional reforms. 

•	 Harvest reforms: The marking of hatchery coho salmon continues to allow 

implementation of selective commercial and recreational fisheries for coho salmon, 

reducing impacts to wild coho salmon from 85 percent to 18 percent. A new coho 

agreement under the Pacific Salmon Treaty (see discussion under the Lower Columbia 

River Chinook salmon ESU section of this report) will continue to constrain ocean 

fishery impacts depending on the annual status of natural populations of coho in 

Canadian, Washington, and Oregon fisheries. 

•	 Completion of the 2008 Federal Columbia River Power System Biological Opinion (see 

Box 5) 

Priority Recovery Actions 

Needed: Priority recovery actions 

needed for this ESU include the 

following: 

•	 Continued implementation 

of the interim 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 basin, 

Box 5. Federal Columbia River Power System 

The operation of the Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) 

affects 13 species of Columbia River Basin salmon and steelhead 

listed for protection under the ESA, which requires the agencies that 

operate the FCRPS to ensure that their actions are not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species, nor result in 

the destruction or adverse modification of habitat designated as 

critical to its conservation. The three FCRPS Action Agencies are the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Bonneville Power Administration, and 

the Bureau of Reclamation. Under the law, the FCRPS action 

agencies must consult with NMFS on actions they intend to undertake 

that may affect a listed species of anadromous fish or its critical 

habitat. The product of this consultation is a Biological Opinion 

regarding the FCRPS and the mainstem effects of other projects, as 

well as authorization for harm to listed species that may be 

incidentally caused by FCRPS operations. Among other actions, the 

FCRPS Biological Opinion: 

•	 Includes a habitat program to protect and improve tributary 

and estuary habitat. 

•	 Provides new and expanded hatchery facilities and safety 

net conservation programs and supports hatchery reforms. 

•	 Expands efforts to reduce juvenile and adult losses from 

predation by birds, other fish, and marine mammals. 

•	 Sets standards for survival of juvenile and adult salmon and 

steelhead migrating through the dams. 

43
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

dam removal. 

•	 Development and implementation of a plan for reintroduction of coho salmon into the 

White Salmon River after removal of Condit Dam (which may occur as early as October 

2009). 

•	 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 implement hatchery reforms; including the 

completion of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Environmental Impact 

Statement for Mitchell Act funded hatcheries so reforms can be implemented to support 

ESA requirements and sustainable fisheries mandates. 

•	 Completion of ocean and in-river harvest management actions, including Fisheries 

Management and Evaluation Plans for coho salmon, to maintain low 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 1. The magnitude of threat to this ESU has been 

classified as high because of strong risks to its abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and 

diversity (which largely have persisted since its status was first reviewed). Delaying recovery 

for this ESU would likely result in mounting extinction risks rather than maintaining the status 

quo level of risk. The recovery potential for this ESU has also been classified as high. Although 

numerous factors limit the recovery of this ESU, the source of these factors and their 

demographic impacts are relatively well understood and recovery planning is currently 

underway. Although it may be cost-prohibitive to completely address every limiting factor, 

integrated reduction of most threats can likely 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. 

44
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

Oregon Coast Coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch) 

Date Listed: August 10, 1998 (63 FR 42587); the 1998 listing of this coho ESU was invalidated 

as a result of a decision in U.S. District Court on September 10, 2001 (Alsea Valley Alliance v. 

Evans, 161 F. Supp. 2d 1154,. (D. Or. 2001)); relisted February 11, 2008 (73 FR 7816) 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: Recovery planning was initiated in 2005 when the ESU was previously 

listed. The State of Oregon adopted an Oregon Coast Coho Conservation Plan in 2007 prior to 

the ESU’s relisting in 2008. Based on the recent listing of this ESU, recovery planning is being 

reinitiated in coordination with the State of Oregon. 

Species Status: The estimated historical abundance (circa 1900) of the Oregon Coast Coho ESU 

is approximately 1 million fish. This compares to a present estimated mean natural fish 

abundance of 150,000. The present estimated mean combined abundance (natural and hatcheryorigin) is 170,000. Preliminary information on the most recent 12 years of available data 

indicates a positive trend in abundance for the Oregon Coast ESU. NMFS will conduct an ESA 

5-year review of this ESU in 2013 or sooner and will update available status and trend 

information at that time. 

Limiting Factors and Threats: Threats and impacts to the Oregon Coast Coho ESU include 

degraded freshwater habitat: floodplain connectivity and function, channel structure and 

complexity, riparian areas and large wood supply, stream substrate, stream flow, and water 

quality have been degraded as a result of cumulative impacts of agriculture, forestry, and 

development. 

Conservation Actions: During 2006–2008, key conservation actions included: 

•	 The State of Oregon adopted an Oregon Coast Coho Conservation Plan in 2007, which 

identifies limiting factors and threats and identifies actions to recover the ESU. The Plan 

establishes ambitious conservation goals and identifies a monitoring program to evaluate 

the effectiveness of conservation actions that contribute to rebuilding the ESU. 

•	 Implementation of the State’s Oregon Coast Coho Conservation Plan has included 

outreach, education, and training for watershed councils, and outreach to coastal lowland 

landowners in areas of high habitat value for this ESU, with particular emphasis on the 

agricultural community. 

•	 Habitat restoration projects: Hundreds of projects have improved riparian areas, fish 

passage at culvert barriers, and stream and floodplain function. 

•	 Improved forest management practices on federal lands and some state and private lands: 

The Northwest Forest Plan Aquatic Conservation Strategy continued in 2006–2008. The 

strategy is designed to conserve and restore salmon and steelhead habitat and provide an 

anchor for federal lands’ contribution to salmon recovery. 

•	 Hatchery reforms: Oregon’s aggressive hatchery reform work has resulted in substantial 

reductions of this threat. Hatchery coho are released in only three out of more than 56 

populations in the ESU, and the magnitude of releases has declined from a peak of 35 

million smolts in 1981 to approximately 500,000 in 2008. The reduction in the number 

45
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

of hatchery fish released has reduced the potential for competition with, and predation on, 

natural coho. All hatchery coho releases in the ESU are now marked, affording improved 

monitoring and assessment of co-existing naturally produced coho populations. 

•	 Harvest reforms: Restrictive harvest regulations, developed concurrently with the State 

of Oregon, have imposed conservative restrictions on directed and incidental fishery 

mortality, and appropriately consider marine survival conditions and the biological status 

of naturally produced coho populations. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: Priority recovery actions needed for this ESU include the 

following: 

•	 Develop a recovery plan in coordination with the State of Oregon. 

•	 Improve land use practices to protect existing high quality habitats and prevent further 

degradation, along with continued targeted restoration based on priority locations and 

issues identified in the Oregon Coast Coho Conservation Plan. 

•	 Educate private landowners and develop incentives for lowland landowners to protect 

and restore high quality coastal coho habitat. 

•	 Research and monitor the distribution, status, and trends of coho salmon. 

•	 Improve agricultural and forestry practices to address limiting factors and threats, 

particularly regarding riparian protections, road construction, and road maintenance. 

•	 Continue to remove and upgrade high-priority human-made fish passage barriers. 

•	 Conduct freshwater habitat restoration to address erosion, stabilize banks, protect and 

restore riparian habitat, and reintroduce large wood. 

•	 Improve freshwater habitat quality and quantity. 

Recovery Priority Number: 1 

With a high magnitude of threat, high recovery potential, and the presence of conflict, this ESU 

has been assigned a recovery priority number of 1. The magnitude of threat to this ESU has been 

classified as high, because of strong risks to its abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and 

diversity (which largely have persisted since its status was first reviewed). Delaying recovery of 

this ESU would likely result in mounting extinction risks rather than maintaining the status quo 

level of risk. The recovery potential for this ESU has also been classified as high. Although 

numerous factors limit the recovery of this ESU, the source of these factors and their 

demographic impacts are relatively well understood and recovery planning is currently 

underway. Although it may be cost-prohibitive to completely address every limiting factor, it is 

likely that integrated reduction of most threats can achieve recovery of this ESU. Finally, as a 

complex variety of activities and management practices continue to impact the conservation and 

recovery of all Pacific salmon ESUs listed under the ESA, NMFS has determined “conflict” 

exists with regard to this ESU. 

46
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

Lower Columbia River Chinook ESU (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) 

Date Listed: March 24, 1999 (64 FR 14308); reaffirmed June 28, 2005 (70 FR 37160) 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: A recovery plan for the Washington portion of the ESU was completed 

in February 2006 as an Interim Regional Recovery Plan. This Plan will be combined with plans 

for the White Salmon basin and for the Oregon portion of the ESU, which are under 

development. A draft plan for the full ESU is expected in the fall of 2009. 

Species Status: The estimated historical abundance (circa 1900) of the Lower Columbia River 

Chinook ESU is 430,000–560,000. At the time of the 2004–2006 Biennial Report, the mean 

natural-origin abundance was estimated to be approximately 24,400, and the mean combined 

abundance (including natural- and hatchery-origin fish) of the ESU was estimated to be 

approximately 48,800. The last formal review of ESU status, completed in 2005, indicated that 

the abundance and productivity of this ESU had remained unchanged since the time of listing. A 

preliminary assessment of trends based on the most recent 10 years of available data indicated 

that the Lower Columbia River Chinook ESU is “stable or increasing.” NMFS will conduct an 

ESA 5-year review of this ESU in 2010 and will update the available status and trend 

information at that time. 

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-related effects (see Box 1 on page 39). 

•	 Harvest impacts to fall Chinook salmon. 

Conservation Actions: During 2006–2008, key conservation actions included: 

•	 Hydropower operational changes and agreements for dam removal (See Box 3 on page 

42). 

•	 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 

(See Box 4 on page 43). 

•	 Hatchery reforms: The Hatchery Scientific Review Group evaluated hatchery programs 

to identify additional reforms needed to ensure that hatcheries benefit conservation 

efforts and reduce risks to the ESU, and the Group is expected to issue a final report in 

early 2009. NMFS and co-managers will use this report, along with additional sciencebased recommendations, to identify and implement additional reforms. Some reforms are 

47
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

already underway for Lower Columbia River Chinook, including hatchery closures, 

production changes, and installation of a weir on the Grays River to trap and remove nonlocal hatchery fish. Also, beginning in 2008, all hatchery production is externally marked 

to allow for selective harvest and evaluation of hatchery and natural escapement to 

spawning grounds. 

•	 Harvest reforms and implementation of Fisheries Management and Evaluation Plans: 

Since this ESU was listed, harvest rates have been steadily reduced from approximately 

70 percent to below 40 percent. The U.S. and Canadian governments approved a new 

agreement under the Pacific Salmon Treaty that will reduce harvest impacts on Lower 

Columbia River fall Chinook salmon by 3 percent relative to the previous agreement, as a 

result of significant reductions (15 percent and 30 percent, respectively) in the Southeast 

Alaskan and West Coast Vancouver Island Canadian fisheries. NMFS will use its 

authorities over U.S. ocean fisheries to ensure that the benefits of these reductions accrue 

to naturally produced Lower Columbia River fall Chinook salmon. Mark-selective 

fisheries for spring Chinook continue to be implemented to maintain low harvest rates on 

naturally produced spring Chinook. 

•	 Completion of the 2008 Federal Columbia River Power System Biological Opinion (see 

Box 5 on page 43). 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: Priority recovery actions needed for this ESU include the 

following: 

•	 Continued 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 basin, dam removal. 

•	 Development and implementation of a plan for reintroducing spring and fall Chinook 

salmon into the White Salmon River after removal of Condit Dam (which may occur as 

early as October 2009). 

•	 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 following applicable Hatchery Scientific Review Group 

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). 

•	 Complete the NEPA Environmental Impact Statement for Mitchell Act funded hatcheries 

and then implement reforms to support ESA requirements and to support sustainable 

fisheries mandates. 

48
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

Recovery Priority Number: 1 

With a high magnitude of threat, high recovery potential, and the presence of conflict, this ESU 

has been assigned a recovery priority number of 1. The magnitude of threat to this ESU has been 

classified as high because of strong risks to its abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and 

diversity (which largely have persisted since its status was first reviewed). Delaying recovery 

for this ESU would likely result in mounting extinction risks rather than maintaining the status 

quo level of risk. The recovery potential for this ESU has also been classified as high. Although 

numerous factors limit the recovery of this ESU, the source of these factors and their 

demographic impacts are relatively well understood and recovery planning is currently 

underway. Although it may be cost-prohibitive to completely address every limiting factor, it is 

likely that integrated reduction of most threats can achieve recovery of this ESU. Finally, as a 

complex variety of activities and management practices continue to impact the conservation and 

recovery of all Pacific salmon ESUs listed under the ESA, NMFS has determined “conflict” 

exists with regard to this ESU. 

49
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

Puget Sound Chinook ESU (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) 

Date Listed: March 24, 1999 (64 FR 14308); reaffirmed June 28, 2005 (70 FR 37160) 

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, including NMFS’ Final Supplement, was published in 

January 2007. 

Species Status: The estimated historical abundance (circa 1900) of the Puget Sound Chinook 

ESU is 600,000–800,000 fish. Based on the most recent 7 years of available data (1999–2005), 

the mean natural abundance is estimated to be approximately 58,000 fish, and the estimated 

mean combined abundance (natural- and hatchery-origin fish) of the ESU returning to Puget 

Sound is approximately 174,000 fish. The last formal review of ESU status in 2003 indicated 

abundance, diversity, and productivity of this ESU had remained unchanged since the time of 

listing or first review in 1999. Preliminary information based on the most recent 12 years of 

available data indicates a positive short-term trend in total abundance (natural- and hatcheryorigin) for this ESU. 

Limiting Factors and Threats: Limiting factors and threats to the Puget Sound Chinook ESU 

include the following: 

•	 Degraded nearshore and estuarine habitat: Nearshore and estuarine habitat throughout 

the ESU has been altered by human activities. Residential and commercial development 

has reduced the amount of functioning habitat available for salmon rearing and migration. 

The loss of mudflats, eelgrass meadows, and macroalgae further limits salmon foraging 

and rearing opportunities in nearshore and estuarine areas. 

•	 Degraded freshwater habitat: Floodplain connectivity and function, channel structure and 

complexity, riparian areas and large wood supply, stream substrate, and water quality 

have been degraded as a result of cumulative impacts of agriculture, forestry, and 

development. 

Conservation Actions: During 2006–2008, key conservation actions included: 

•	 Improved forest management practices on non-federal lands. The Northwest Forest Plan 

Aquatic Conservation Strategy is designed to conserve and restore salmon and steelhead 

habitat, and provides an anchor for federal lands’ contribution to salmon recovery. 

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. 

•	 Planned dam removal: Completed ESA section 7 consultation with the Olympic National 

Park on the removal of two dams on the Elwha River that have blocked salmon access to 

50
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

70 miles of habitat since the early 1900s. The removal of these two dams beginning in 

2012 will greatly aid salmon recovery in this system. The project will restore freshwater 

habitat access, improve habitat conditions within the watershed, and improve estuary 

habitat at the mouth of the Elwha River. 

•	 Improved harvest and hatchery management. The Puget Sound Harvest Plan includes 

harvest objectives consistent with optimizing habitat potential and integrating hatchery 

objectives. Harvest objectives were revised to be consistent with what is known of the 

productivity in the various watersheds and the contribution of hatchery spawners. The 

harvest plan also includes implementation, monitoring, and evaluation procedures 

designed to ensure fisheries are consistent with fishery objectives for conservation and 

resource use. Co-managers have also implemented time, area, and gear restrictions to 

maximize harvest opportunity on hatchery and healthy listed Chinook populations and to 

minimize impacts on weaker populations. These actions include complete closure of 

some terminal fisheries, non-retention of Chinook, and selective fishing techniques. 

Several conservation hatchery programs have been implemented to preserve severely 

depressed Chinook populations while habitat needed to sustain the populations in a 

natural state are restored. 

•	 Negotiated a new Chinook harvest agreement as part of the Pacific Salmon Treaty renegotiations: The United States achieved significant harvest reductions in west coast 

Canadian fisheries that will complement on-going U.S. harvest measures to benefit listed 

Puget Sound populations. 

•	 Implemented hatchery management modifications: The implementation of hatchery 

reform measures—based to a significant extent on recommendations developed 

independently by the Hatchery Scientific Review Group and resulting from consultations 

between hatchery co-managers and NMFS—has led to operational changes that are 

expected to benefit natural Chinook populations. 

•	 Washington’s Puget Sound Partnership completed its’ 2020 Action Agenda, establishing 

a blueprint for recovery of the Puget Sound Ecosystem by 2020. 

•	 Funded 212 total habitat restoration and protection projects totaling approximately 

$110.3 million. 

•	 Began restoration of 762 acres in the Nisqually Estuary in 2008 with the completion of 

the exterior dikes. 

•	 Began hatchery supplementation for the South Fork Nooksack and South Fork 

Stillaguamish populations. 

•	 Removed 5 fish passage barriers and funded 26 fish passage barrier projects. 

•	 Funded 14 riparian habitat invasive species restoration projects. 

•	 Restored 7.96 miles of stream access and funded 46 stream access restoration projects. 

•	 Funded 43 wetland habitat restoration projects. 

•	 Restored 9 acres of estuarine and freshwater habitat invasive species and funded 89 

estuarine and freshwater habitat invasive species restoration projects. 

•	 Restored 78.1 acres of estuarine and freshwater habitat and funded 105 estuarine and 

freshwater habitat restoration projects. 

•	 Restored 23.37 miles of instream habitat and funded 235 instream habitat restoration 

projects. 

•	 Protected 8.22 miles of stream bank and funded 69 stream bank protection projects. 

51
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: Priority recovery actions needed for this ESU include the 

following: 

•	 Restore degraded floodplain and channel structure. 

•	 Restore and protect estuarine habitat. 

•	 Improve and restore degraded riparian forests and increase large woody debris 

recruitment. 

•	 Restore natural sediment routing processes. 

•	 Improve water quality, particularly stormwater from paved surfaces and developed lands. 

•	 Curtail nearshore habitat loss and restore nearshore habitat quality. 

•	 Restore natural hydrologic processes and improve flow management. 

•	 Continue to apply measures that reduce the risk of adverse effects from hatchery and 

harvest management activities to survival and recovery. 

•	 Continue to implement conservation hatchery programs that preserve at-risk Chinook 

salmon populations, preventing their extinction until natural habitat can be restored. 

Recovery Priority Number: 1 

With a high magnitude of threat, high recovery potential, and the presence of conflict, this ESU 

has been assigned a recovery priority number of 1. The magnitude of threat to this ESU has been 

classified as high, because of strong risks to its abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and 

diversity (which largely have persisted since its status was first reviewed). Delaying 

implementation of actions to recover this ESU would likely result in a mounting extinction risk 

rather than maintaining the status quo level of risk. The recovery potential for this ESU has also 

been classified as high. Although numerous factors limit the recovery of this ESU, the source of 

these factors and their demographic impacts are somewhat understood and recovery planning is 

being implemented. Although it would be cost-prohibitive to completely address every limiting 

factor, there is a general belief that integrated reduction of most threats can eventually achieve 

recovery of this ESU. Finally, as a complex variety of activities and management practices 

continue to affect the conservation and recovery of all Pacific salmon ESUs listed under the 

ESA, NMFS has determined “conflict” exists with regard to this ESU. 

52
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

Snake River Fall-Run Chinook ESU (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) 

Date Listed: April 22, 1992 (57 FR 14653); reaffirmed June 28, 2005 (70 FR 37160) 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: A draft recovery plan for this ESU was developed in March 1995 but 

was not adopted. Although no recovery plan has been completed for this ESU, recovery 

planning is underway. A draft recovery plan for this ESU is expected in early 2010. 

Species Status: The estimated historical abundance of the Snake River Fall-Run Chinook ESU 

is 400,000–500,000. This compares to a present estimated abundance of 4,900 naturally 

produced spawners. The estimated recent mean combined abundance (natural- and hatcheryorigin fish) of the ESU is approximately 12,300. The last formal review of ESU status, based on 

pre-2005 data, indicated that abundance and productivity of this ESU had improved since the 

time of listing. Preliminary information based on the most recent 12 years of available data 

indicates that the Snake River Fall-Run Chinook ESU is “stable or increasing.” NMFS will 

conduct an ESA 5-year review of this ESU in 2010 and will update the available status and trend 

information at that time. 

Limiting Factors and Threats: Limiting factors and threats to the Snake River Fall-Run 

Chinook ESU include the following: 

•	 Degraded habitat: fish passage. 

•	 Degraded freshwater habitat: Floodplain connectivity and function, and channel structure 

and complexity have been degraded as a result of cumulative impacts of agriculture, 

forestry, and development. 

•	 Harvest-related effects. 

•	 Mainstem Columbia River hydropower impacts. 

•	 Hatchery-related effects (see Box 1 on page 39). 

•	 Degraded estuarine and nearshore habitat. 

Conservation Actions: During 2006–2008, key conservation actions included: 

•	 Completed the 2008 Federal Columbia River Power System Biological Opinion (see Box 

5 on page 43). 

•	 Protected 12 ESUs and steelhead DPSs in the Columbia Basin through a 2008 agreement 

and NMFS ESA Biological Opinion for managing Columbia River tribal and non-tribal 

fishing. The new agreement and Biological Opinion have been adopted by the Federal 

Court (under the authority of U.S. v. Oregon) and parties to the agreement include the 

states of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho; the Umatilla, Yakama, Nez Perce, and Warm 

Springs tribes; FWS; and NMFS. 

•	 Negotiated a new Chinook harvest agreement as part of the Pacific Salmon Treaty renegotiations. The U.S. achieved significant harvest reductions in west coast Canadian 

fisheries that will complement on-going U.S. harvest measures to benefit Snake River fall 

Chinook. 

53
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

•	 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 U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency and the states. 

•	 Conducted local habitat restoration and stream flow restoration (projects by the 

Northwest Power Planning Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program, Pacific 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 the State of Idaho and the Nez Perce Tribe in 2005. 

•	 Continued programs to improve priority irrigation diversions by adding fish screens. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: Priority recovery actions needed for this ESU include the 

following: 

•	 Continue the structural and operational modifications to hydropower dams to improve 

salmon survival in the migration corridor. 

•	 Protect high-quality habitats. 

•	 Conduct habitat restoration, as 80 percent of historical habitat for this ESU has been lost. 

•	 Manage river temperatures to benefit this ESU. 

•	 Reduce dependence of the ESU on hatcheries. 

•	 Reduce genetic and biological interbreeding between hatchery- and natural-origin fish. 

•	 Explore opportunities to target harvest on hatchery-origin fish as one mechanism for 

reducing dependence of ESU on hatcheries. 

Recovery Priority Number: 1 

With a high magnitude of threat, high recovery potential, and the presence of conflict, this ESU 

has been assigned a recovery priority number of 1. The magnitude of threat to this ESU has been 

classified as high, because of strong risks to its abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and 

diversity (which largely have persisted since its status was first reviewed). 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. 

54
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

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

Date Listed: April 22, 1992 (57 FR 14653); reaffirmed June 28, 2005 (70 FR 37160) 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: A draft recovery plan for this ESU was developed in March 1995 but 

was not adopted. Although a recovery plan has not been completed for this ESU, recovery 

planning is underway. A revised draft recovery plan for this ESU is expected by December 

2009. 

Species Status: The estimated historical abundance (circa 1900) of the Snake River 

spring/summer-run Chinook ESU is 1.75 million to 2.25 million. At the time of the 2004–2006 

Biennial Report, the mean natural-origin abundance was estimated to be approximately 18,000, 

and the mean combined abundance (including natural- and hatchery-origin fish) of the ESU was 

estimated to be approximately 89,800. The last formal review of ESU status, completed in 2005, 

indicated that the abundance and productivity of this ESU had remained unchanged since the 

time of listing. A preliminary assessment of trends based on the most recent 10 years of 

available data indicates the Snake River spring/summer-run Chinook ESU is “unstable or 

decreasing.” NMFS will conduct an ESA 5-year review of this ESU in 2010 and will update the 

available status and trend information at that time. 

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. 

•	 Harvest-related effects. 

•	 Predation. 

Conservation Actions: During 2006–2008, key conservation actions included: 

•	 Completed the 2008 Federal Columbia River Power System Biological Opinion (see Box 

5 on page 43). 

•	 Protected 12 ESUs and steelhead DPSs in the Columbia Basin through a 2008 agreement 

and NMFS ESA Biological Opinion for managing Columbia River tribal and non-tribal 

fishing. The new agreement and Biological Opinion have been adopted by the Federal 

Court (under the authority of U.S. v. Oregon) and parties to the agreement include the 

states of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho; the Umatilla, Yakama, Nez Perce, and Warm 

Springs tribes; FWS; and NMFS. 

•	 Improved federal land management practices by working with the U.S. Forest Service 

and Bureau of Land Management to design land management plans that will protect and 

restore habitat. 

•	 Worked with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to improve water quality 

permitting procedures that enhance salmon considerations. 

55
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

•	 Conducted local habitat restoration and restoration of stream flows. This includes efforts 

by the Northwest Power Planning Council Fish and Wildlife Program, Pacific Coast 

Salmon Restoration 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 Pierce Tribe and the State of Idaho, including a program to 

improve instream flows in the Lemhi River. 

•	 Equipped hundreds of irrigation diversions with fish screens. 

•	 Reduced overall harvest rates. 

•	 Conducted efforts in hatchery conservation. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: Priority recovery actions needed for this ESU include: 

•	 Continue the structural and operational modifications to hydropower dams to improve 

salmon survival in the migration corridor. 

•	 Protect high-quality habitats. 

•	 Conduct habitat restoration. 

•	 Increase instream flows. 

•	 Implement and continue abundance-based management to reduce harvest impacts during 

low-return years when protections are most needed. 

•	 Control predation. 

•	 Complete and implement Fishery Management and Evaluation Plans and Tribal Resource 

Management Plans for tributary fisheries. 

•	 Implement harvest agreements from U.S. v. Oregon. 

Recovery Priority Number: 1 

With a high magnitude of threat, high recovery potential, and the presence of conflict, this ESU 

has been assigned a recovery priority number of 1. The magnitude of threat to this ESU has been 

classified as high, because of strong risks to its abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and 

diversity (which largely have persisted since its status was first reviewed). Delaying recovery 

for this ESU would likely result in mounting extinction risks rather than maintaining the status 

quo level of risk. The recovery potential for this ESU has also been classified as high. Although 

numerous factors limit the recovery of this ESU, the source of these factors and their 

demographic impacts are relatively well understood and recovery planning is currently 

underway. Although it may be cost-prohibitive to completely address every limiting factor, it is 

likely the integrated reduction of most threats can achieve recovery of this ESU. Finally, as a 

complex variety of activities and management practices continue to impact the conservation and 

recovery of all Pacific salmon ESUs listed under the ESA, NMFS has determined “conflict” 

exists with regard to this ESU. 

56
 
 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

Upper Columbia River Spring-Run Chinook ESU (Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha) 

Date Listed: March 24, 1999 (64 FR 14308); reaffirmed on June 28, 2005 (70 FR 37160) 

Legal Status: Endangered 

Recovery Plan Status: A proposed ESA recovery plan was completed and approved by both 

the Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Board and NMFS in July 2006. The final ESA recovery 

plan for this ESU was completed in September 2007. 

Species Status: The estimated historical abundance (circa 1900) of the Upper Columbia River 

spring-run Chinook ESU is 25,000–35,000. At the time of the 2004–2006 Biennial Report, the 

mean natural-origin abundance was estimated to be approximately 1,800, and the mean 

combined abundance (including natural- and hatchery-origin fish) of the ESU was estimated to 

be approximately 3,600. The last formal review of ESU status, completed in 2005, indicated that 

the abundance and productivity of this ESU had remained unchanged since the time of listing. A 

preliminary assessment of trends based on the most recent 10 years of available data indicates 

that the Upper Columbia River spring-run Chinook ESU is “stable or increasing.” NMFS will 

conduct an ESA 5-year review of this ESU in 2010 and will update the available status and trend 

information at that time. 

Limiting Factors and Threats: Limiting factors and threats to the Upper Columbia River 

Spring-Run Chinook ESU include the following: 

•	 Mainstem Columbia River hydropower-related adverse effects. 

•	 Degraded freshwater habitat: floodplain connectivity and function, channel structure and 

complexity, riparian areas and large woody debris recruitment, stream flow, and water 

quality have been degraded as a result of cumulative impacts of agriculture, forestry, and 

development. 

•	 Hatchery-related effects (see Box 1 on page 39). 

Conservation Actions: During 2006–2008, key conservation actions included: 

•	 Conducted and facilitated local habitat restoration and protection projects: Conservation 

easements and land purchases of riparian areas along rivers and streams have been used 

to protect critical spawning and rearing areas; the Natural Resources Conservation 

Service Conservation Reserve and Enhancement Program protects riparian areas on farms 

and ranches. 

•	 Equipped irrigation diversion withdrawals with screens, leading to greater productivity 

and abundance. 

•	 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. 

•	 Completed a new ESA section 7 consultation to protect these fish from overharvest in the 

Upper Columbia River. 

57
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

•	 Completed the 2008 Federal Columbia River Power System Biological Opinion (see Box 

5 on page 43). 

•	 Protected these fish in the mainstem and Lower Columbia River basin through a 2008 

agreement and NMFS ESA Biological Opinion for managing Columbia River tribal and 

non-tribal fishing. The new agreement and Biological Opinion have been adopted by the 

Federal Court (under the authority of U.S. v. Oregon) and parties to the agreement 

include the states of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho; the Umatilla, Yakama, Nez Perce 

and Warm Springs tribes; FWS; and NMFS. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: Priority recovery actions needed for this ESU include: 

•	 Protect high-quality habitat—particularly productive, sensitive floodplain habitats—from 

residential development. 

•	 Improve fish passage at barriers along the migration corridor. 

•	 Improve irrigation efficiencies to improve instream flows. 

•	 Restore habitat and increase habitat complexity. 

•	 A new ESA section 7 biological opinion and new U.S. v. Oregon harvest agreement 

protects these fish during their migration in the Lower Columbia River. 

Recovery Priority Number: 1 

With a high magnitude of threat, high recovery potential, and the presence of conflict, this ESU 

has been assigned a recovery priority number of 1. The magnitude of threat to this ESU has been 

classified as high, because of strong risks to its abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and 

diversity (which largely have persisted since its status was first reviewed). Delaying recovery 

for this ESU would likely result in mounting extinction risks rather than maintaining the status 

quo level of risk. The recovery potential for this ESU has also been classified as high. Although 

numerous factors limit the recovery of this ESU, the source of these factors and their 

demographic impacts are relatively well understood and recovery planning is currently 

underway. Although it may be cost-prohibitive to completely address every limiting factor, it is 

likely that integrated reduction of most threats can achieve recovery of this ESU. Finally, as a 

complex variety of activities and management practices continue to impact the conservation and 

recovery of all Pacific salmon ESUs listed under the ESA, NMFS has determined “conflict” 

exists with regard to this ESU. 

58
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

Upper Willamette River Chinook ESU (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) 

Date Listed: March 24, 1999 (64 FR 14308); reaffirmed June 28, 2005 (70 FR 37160) 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: A draft recovery plan for the ESU was released in September 2007 and 

a final recovery plan is expected in 2010. 

Species Status: The estimated historical abundance (circa 1900) of the Upper Willamette River 

Chinook ESU is 260,000–340,000. At the time of the 2004–2006 Biennial Report, the mean 

natural-origin abundance was estimated to be approximately 17,100, and the mean combined 

abundance (including natural- and hatchery-origin fish) of the ESU was estimated to be 

approximately 85,300. The last formal review of ESU status, completed in 2005, indicated that 

the abundance and productivity of this ESU had remained unchanged since the time of listing. A 

preliminary assessment of trends based on the most recent 10 years of available data indicates 

that the Upper Willamette River Chinook ESU is “stable or increasing.” NMFS will conduct an 

ESA 5-year review of this ESU in 2010 and will update the available status and trend 

information at that time. 

Limiting Factors and Threats: Limiting factors and threats to the Upper Willamette River 

Chinook ESU include the following: 

•	 Significantly reduced access to spawning and rearing habitat because of tributary dams. 

•	 Degraded freshwater habitat, especially floodplain connectivity and function, channel 

structure and complexity, and riparian areas and large wood recruitment as a result of 

cumulative impacts of agriculture, forestry, and development. 

•	 Degraded water quality and altered temperature as a result of both tributary dams and the 

cumulative impacts of agriculture, forestry, and urban development. 

•	 Hatchery-related effects (see Box 1 on page 39). 

Conservation Actions: During 2006–2008, key conservation actions included: 

•	 Completed ESA section 7 consultation between NMFS and the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and Bonneville Power Administration on the 

continued operation of 13 multipurpose dams in the Willamette Basin. Beneficial actions 

to the ESU include: enhanced upstream fish passage (the dams block access to most 

historical spawning habitat for this ESU), retrofitting of dams to provide more normative 

temperature regimes below the projects, enhanced downstream passage at certain 

projects, and enhanced flow management to ensure safe migration, spawning, incubation, 

and rearing. 

•	 Conducted ESA consultation at hydroelectric projects as part of FERC re-licensing, new 

licenses, and settlement agreements. Benefits to salmonids include improved 

streamflows, habitat restoration, gravel augmentation below dams for spawning, and 

improved upstream and downstream fish passage at dams. Improvements were made at 

Willamette Falls Dam, Albany/Lebanon Dam, and Upper Bennett Dam. Agreements 

were also made for improvements at Clackamas, Dorena, and Trail Bridge dams in the 

coming years. 

59
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

•	 Removed the Brownsville Dam on the Calapooia River as a result of NMFS’ Open River 

Initiative. A second dam is slated for removal in 2009. 

•	 Completed hundreds of habitat restoration projects that have improved riparian areas, fish 

passage at culvert barriers, and stream and floodplain function. ESA section 7 

programmatic consultation with the U.S. Corps of Engineers was completed in 2008 to 

expedite permitting of these types of salmonid recovery actions. 

•	 Improved forest management practices on Federal lands by continuing the Northwest 

Forest Plan Aquatic Conservation Strategy. The strategy is designed to conserve and 

restore salmon and steelhead habitat, and to provide an anchor for federal lands’ 

contribution to salmon recovery. The U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land 

Management worked with NMFS in 2006 to develop a programmatic approach to 

designing and approving timber sales that would result in minimal impacts to salmonids. 

•	 Completed and implemented an ESA consultation on cleanup of a Superfund site in the 

Lower Willamette River at an abandoned creosote plant in 2007 to improve water quality 

for migrating and rearing juvenile salmonids. 

•	 Through recent hatchery reforms, 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. 

•	 Achieved harvest reforms: Selective fisheries continue to be successfully implemented 

and have reduced impacts to wild fish by more than 75 percent while still allowing 

recreational and commercial fisheries. 

•	 In a new Chinook harvest agreement as part of the Pacific Salmon Treaty re-negotiations, 

the U.S. achieved significant harvest reductions in west coast Canadian fisheries that will 

complement on-going U.S. harvest measures to benefit listed Upper Willamette Chinook. 

•	 Completed the 2008 Federal Columbia River Power System Biological Opinion (see Box 

5 on page 43). 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: Priority recovery actions needed for this ESU include the 

following: 

• Implement the new recovery actions described in the section 7 biological opinion on the 

13 federal dams in the Willamette Basin, an ESA consultation between NMFS and the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and Bonneville Power 

Administration. 

•	 Improve land use practices to protect existing high-quality habitat and prevent further 

degradation, along with continued, targeted restoration of other priority locations and 

issues identified in the draft recovery plan. Protection and restoration are particularly 

important in lowland floodplain stream reaches where channel complexity and floodplain 

connectivity are severely degraded. 

•	 Continue improvements in hatchery management to reduce genetic risks, improve 

hatchery Chinook survival for recovery efforts, and minimize impacts from non-native 

summer steelhead. 

Recovery Priority Number: 1 

With a high magnitude of threat, high recovery potential, and the presence of conflict, this ESU 

has been assigned a recovery priority number of 1. The magnitude of threat to this ESU has been 

classified as high, because of very high risks to its abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and 

60
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

diversity (which largely have persisted since its status was first reviewed). Delaying recovery 

for this ESU would likely result in mounting extinction risks rather than maintaining the status 

quo level of risk. The recovery potential for this ESU has also been classified as high. Although 

numerous factors limit the recovery of this ESU, the source of these factors and their 

demographic impacts are relatively well understood and recovery planning is currently 

underway. Although it may be cost-prohibitive to completely address every limiting factor, it is 

likely that integrated reduction of most threats can achieve recovery of this ESU, particularly if 

the corrective actions for the federal dams are implemented. 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. 

61
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

Columbia River Chum ESU (Oncorhynchus keta) 

Date Listed: March 25, 1999 (64 FR 14508); reaffirmed June 28, 2005 (70 FR 37160) 

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 

plans for the White Salmon basin and for the Oregon portion of the ESU, which are in process. 

A draft plan for the full ESU is expected in the fall of 2009. 

Species Status: The estimated historical abundance (circa 1900) of the Columbia River Chum 

ESU is 1.2 million to 1.6 million. At the time of the 2004–2006 Biennial Report, the mean 

natural-origin abundance was estimated to be approximately 8,500, and the mean combined 

abundance (including natural- and hatchery-origin fish) of the ESU was estimated to be 

approximately 8,500. The last formal review of ESU status, completed in 2005, indicated that 

the abundance and productivity of this ESU had remained unchanged since the time of listing. A 

preliminary assessment of trends based on the most recent 10 years of available data indicates 

that the Columbia River Chum ESU is “stable or increasing.” NMFS will conduct an ESA 5­

year review of this ESU in 2010 and will update the available status and trend information at that 

time. 

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: During 2006–2008, key conservation actions included: 

•	 Habitat restoration projects: Federal, state, and local governments and private entities 

carried out several habitat restoration projects to increase natural production and add to 

the ESU’s spatial structure, helping to protect against catastrophic loss. 

•	 Improved forest management practices on federal lands and some state and private lands 

(See Box 4 on page 43). 

•	 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. 

62
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

•	 Completed the 2008 Federal Columbia River Power System Biological Opinion (see Box 

5 on page 43). 

•	 Protected 12 ESUs and steelhead DPSs in the Columbia Basin through a 2008 agreement 

and NMFS ESA Biological Opinion for managing Columbia River tribal and non-tribal 

fishing. The new agreement and Biological Opinion have been adopted by the Federal 

Court (under the authority of U.S. v. Oregon) and parties to the agreement include the 

states of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho; the Umatilla, Yakama, Nez Perce, and Warm 

Springs tribes; FWS; and NMFS. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: Priority recovery actions needed for this ESU include: 

•	 Continued implementation of the interim 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 

floodplains. 

•	 Monitoring of historical production areas and active restoration of populations in Lower 

Columbia River tributaries having no current known spawning activity. 

•	 Restoration of shallow-water rearing habitat in the Lower Columbia River and 

monitoring and evaluation to identify additional restoration sites. 

•	 Avoiding continued degradation and loss of chum spawning and rearing habitat through 

land and water practices that promote conservation. 

Recovery Priority Number: 1 

With a high magnitude of threat, high recovery potential, and the presence of conflict, this ESU 

has been assigned a recovery priority number of 1. The magnitude of threat to this ESU has been 

classified as high, because of strong risks to its abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and 

diversity (which largely have remained the same since its status was first reviewed). Delaying 

recovery for this ESU would likely result in mounting extinction risks rather than maintaining 

the status quo level of risk. The recovery potential for this ESU has also been classified as high. 

Although numerous factors limit the recovery of this ESU, the source of these factors and their 

demographic impacts are relatively well understood and recovery planning is currently 

underway. Although it may be cost-prohibitive to completely address every limiting factor, it is 

likely that integrated reduction of most threats can achieve recovery of this ESU. Finally, as a 

complex variety of activities and management practices continue to impact the conservation and 

recovery of all Pacific salmon ESUs listed under the ESA, NMFS has determined “conflict” 

exists with regard to this ESU. 

63
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

Hood Canal Summer-Run Chum ESU (Oncorhynchus keta) 

Date Listed: March 25, 1999 (64 FR 14508); reaffirmed June 28, 2005 (70 FR 37160) 

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. The final ESA Hood Canal Summer Chum Recovery Plan, with NMFS’ 

Final Supplement to the Plan, was published in May 2007. 

Species Status: The estimated historical abundance (circa 1900) of the Hood Canal summer-run 

Chum ESU is 60,000–80,000 fish. Based on the most recent 7 years of available data (1999– 

2005), the mean natural abundance is estimated to be approximately 19,900 fish, and the 

estimated mean combined abundance (natural- and hatchery-origin fish) of the ESU returning to 

Hood Canal is approximately 30,600 fish. The last formal review of ESU status in 2003 

indicated abundance, diversity, and productivity of this ESU had remained unchanged since the 

time of listing or first review in 1999. Preliminary information based on the most recent 12 years 

of available data indicates a positive short-term trend in total abundance (natural- and hatcheryorigin) for this 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 has 

reduced the amount of functioning habitat available for salmon rearing and migration. 

The loss of mudflats, eelgrass meadows, and macroalgae further limits salmon foraging 

and rearing opportunities in nearshore and estuarine areas. 

•	 Degraded freshwater habitat: Floodplain connectivity and function, channel structure and 

complexity, riparian areas and large wood supply, stream substrate, and stream flow have 

been degraded as a result of cumulative impacts of agriculture, forestry, and 

development. 

Conservation Actions: During 2006–2008, key conservation actions included: 

•	 Conducted collaborative habitat restoration efforts with the Washington Department of 

Fish and Wildlife and the Point No Point Treaty Council; projects in the 

Jimmycomelately Creek in partnership with the Jamestown S’Klallam tribes; and other 

projects in the Quilcene, Snow/Salmon, Chimacum, Tahuya, and Dewatto watersheds. 

•	 Implemented eight ESA-approved conservation hatchery programs that preserved at-risk 

populations, bolstered the abundance of naturally spawning and natural-origin fish, and 

reintroduced summer chum salmon spawning in two watersheds where the native 

populations had become extirpated. Implemented measures at hatcheries producing other 

salmon species that reduce the risk of adverse impacts to summer chum salmon. 

64
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

•	 Continued to implement the Harvest Management component of the Summer Chum 

Salmon Conservation Initiative. Approved under ESA 4(d) Rule limit 6 in 2001, the plan 

establishes an annual fishing regime designed to minimize incidental take of summer 

chum salmon, while providing an opportunity for fisheries harvesting other salmon 

species. The regime includes complete closure of some terminal fisheries, non-retention 

of summer chum, and gear restrictions. Harvest rates in both U.S. and Canada have been 

well below expectations. 

•	 Improved forest management practices on non-federal lands: Implementation of forest 

practices consistent with the Washington Forest and Fish Agreement, to which NMFS is 

a party, will improve aquatic habitat conditions for fish and wildlife on state and private 

timber lands in Washington State. 

•	 Approved a 4(d) limit for the Washington State Department of Transportation Routine 

Road Maintenance activities. The limit is implemented by local governments. 

•	 The Hood Canal Coordinating Council completed several sections of the final Hood 

Canal Summer Chum salmon recovery 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 recruitment of large woody debris. 

•	 Restore natural sediment routing processes. 

•	 Restore natural hydrologic processes and improve flow management. 

•	 Continue to implement recovery-directed hatchery and harvest management actions. 

Recovery Priority Number: 1 

With a high magnitude of threat, high recovery potential, and the presence of conflict, this ESU 

has been assigned a recovery priority number of 1. The magnitude of threat to this ESU has been 

classified as high, because of strong risks to its abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and 

diversity (which largely have persisted since its status was first reviewed). Delaying recovery 

for this ESU would likely result in mounting extinction risks rather than maintaining the status 

quo level of risk. The recovery potential for this ESU has also been classified as high. Although 

numerous factors limit the recovery of this ESU, the source of these factors and their 

demographic impacts are relatively well understood and recovery planning is currently 

underway. Although it may be cost-prohibitive to completely address every limiting factor, it is 

likely that integrated reduction of most threats can achieve recovery of this ESU. Finally, as a 

complex variety of activities and management practices continue to affect the conservation and 

recovery of all Pacific salmon ESUs listed under the ESA, NMFS has determined “conflict” 

exists with regard to this ESU. 

65
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

Ozette Lake Sockeye ESU (Oncorhynchus nerka) 

Date Listed: March 25, 1999 (64 FR 14528); reaffirmed June 28, 2005 (70 FR 37160) 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: A proposed recovery plan was sent out for public comment on April 23, 

2008 (73 FR 21913) and a final recovery plan is expected in early 2009. 

Species Status: The estimated historical abundance (circa 1900) of the Ozette Lake sockeye 

ESU is 15,000–20,000. At the time of the 2004–2006 Biennial Report, the mean natural-origin 

abundance was estimated to be approximately 2,100, and the mean combined abundance 

(including natural- and hatchery-origin fish) of the ESU was estimated to be approximately 

4,200. The last formal review of ESU status, completed in 2005, indicated that the abundance 

and productivity of this ESU had remained unchanged since the time of listing. A preliminary 

assessment of trends based on the most recent 10 years of available data indicates that the Ozette 

Lake sockeye ESU is “stable or increasing.” NMFS will conduct an ESA 5-year review of this 

ESU in 2010 and will update the available status and trend information at that time. 

Limiting Factors and Threats: Limiting factors and threats to the Ozette Lake sockeye ESU 

include the following: 

•	 Degraded freshwater habitat: Floodplain connectivity and function, channel structure and 

complexity, riparian areas and large wood supply, lake beach spawning habitat, and 

stream substrate have been degraded as a result of cumulative impacts of forestry 

practices, agriculture, and development. 

•	 Predation: Harbor seals, river otters, and predaceous non-native and native fish species 

are having an adverse effect on the abundance of adult fish that successfully spawn, and 

on the abundance of sockeye smolts escaping seaward from the watershed each year, 

respectively. 

Conservation Actions: During 2006–2008, key conservation actions included: 

•	 Conducted monthly multi-stakeholder Steering Committee meetings to develop the 

proposed Lake Ozette Sockeye Recovery Plan that was noticed for public comment on 

April 23, 2008. 

•	 Implemented a conservation hatchery program under the ESA-approved joint tribal-state 

Lake Ozette Sockeye Salmon Resource Management Plan that established a naturally 

spawning sockeye aggregation in an Ozette Lake tributary, and led to the collection of 

sockeye salmon life history and status information needed for recovery planning. 

•	 Approved the Washington State Department of Transportation’s Routine Road 

Maintenance 4(d) limit and its implementation by Clallam County. 

•	 Implemented forest practices consistent with the Washington Forest and Fish Agreement, 

to which NMFS is a party, to 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. 

66
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: Conservation and recovery actions needed for this ESU 

include the following: 

•	 Implement the recovery plan by developing action implementation and 

research/monitoring priorities and schedules and pursuing funding for plan actions. 

•	 Restore natural sediment routing processes. 

•	 Restore large woody debris recruitment and riparian habitat. 

•	 Restore degraded tributary and river habitat structure. 

•	 Control harbor seal, river otter, and fish predation. 

•	 Restore natural river and lake hydrologic processes. 

•	 Restore lake beach spawning habitat. 

Recovery Priority Number: 1 

With a high magnitude of threat, high recovery potential, and the presence of conflict, this ESU 

has been assigned a recovery priority number of 1. The magnitude of threat to this ESU has been 

classified as high, because of strong risks to its abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and 

diversity (which largely have persisted since its status was first reviewed). Delaying recovery 

for this ESU would likely result in mounting extinction risks rather than maintaining the status 

quo level of risk. The recovery potential for this ESU has also been classified as high. Although 

numerous factors limit the recovery of this ESU, the source of these factors and their 

demographic impacts are relatively well understood and recovery planning is currently 

underway. Although it may be cost-prohibitive to completely address every limiting factor, it is 

likely that integrated reduction of most threats can achieve recovery of this ESU. Finally, as a 

complex variety of activities and management practices continue to affect the conservation and 

recovery of all Pacific salmon ESUs listed under the ESA, NMFS has determined “conflict” 

exists with regard to this ESU. 

67
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

Snake River Sockeye ESU (Oncorhynchus nerka) 

Date Listed: November 20, 1991 (56 FR 58619); reaffirmed June 28, 2005 (70 FR 37160) 

Legal Status: Endangered 

Recovery Plan Status: A draft plan was developed in March 1995 but was not adopted. A new 

draft recovery plan is expected in 2010. 

Species Status: The estimated historical abundance (circa 1900) of the Snake River sockeye 

ESU is 40,000–57,000. During the first decade after listing, adult returns plummeted, with total 

returns to the spawning areas ranging between 0 and 8 annually. At the time of the 2004–2006 

Biennial Report, the mean total abundance (including natural- and hatchery-origin fish) of the 

ESU was estimated to be approximately 40. Based on the most recent 5 years of available data, 

the estimated mean abundance (of hatchery-origin fish) in this ESU is approximately 138, driven 

primarily by the 2008 return. Most of the fish are identifiable as returns from the captive 

propagation program; some of the returning adults are unmarked, but are likely fish from the 

captive propagation program. The last formal review of ESU status, completed in 2005, 

indicated that the abundance and productivity of this ESU had remained unchanged since the 

time of listing. A preliminary assessment of trends based on the most recent 10 years of 

available data indicates that the Snake River sockeye ESU is “unstable or decreasing.” NMFS 

will conduct an ESA 5-year review of this ESU in 2010 and will update the available status and 

trend information at that time. 

Limiting Factors and Threats: The key factor limiting recovery for this ESU is out-of-subbasin survival, and improvements in population status will rely on improvements in out-of-basin 

survival. Portions of the migration corridor in the Salmon River are impeded by water quality 

and temperature. Increased temperatures may reduce the survival of adult sockeye returning to 

the Stanley Basin. The natural hydrological regime in the upper mainstem Salmon River has 

been altered by water withdrawals. In most years, sockeye adult returns to Lower Granite suffer 

catastrophic losses (> 50% mortality in 1 year) before reaching the Stanley Basin, though the 

factors causing these losses have not been identified. In the Columbia and lower Snake River 

migration corridor, predation rates on juvenile sockeye salmon are unknown, but terns and 

cormorants consume 12 percent of all salmon smolts reaching the estuary, and piscivorous fish 

consume an estimated 8 percent of migrating juvenile salmon. 

Conservation Actions: During 2006–2008, key conservation actions included: 

•	 Completed the 2008 Federal Columbia River Power System Biological Opinion (see Box 

5 on page 43). 

•	 Increased captive propagation program capacity toward goal of 1 million juveniles. 

•	 Expanded diversity of locations for releases of captive propagation program fish, and 

continued releasing fish at variety of life stages (eggs, juveniles, and adults). 

•	 Conducted local habitat restoration and restoration of stream flows. This work includes 

efforts by the Northwest Power Planning Council Fish and Wildlife Program, Pacific 

Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund, Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the NOAA 

Restoration Center. 

•	 Continued installation of fish screens on irrigation diversions. 

68
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

•	 Established criteria and processes for funding priority PCSRF projects through 

Memoranda of Understanding between NMFS and five states and three tribal 

commissions. 

•	 Provided funding commitments for habitat and other projects in the Snake River Basin 

through an MOU between federal action agencies and Shoshone-Bannock tribes. 

•	 Protected 12 ESUs and steelhead DPSs in the Columbia Basin through a 2008 agreement 

and NMFS ESA Biological Opinion for managing Columbia River tribal and non-tribal 

fishing. The new agreement and Biological Opinion have been adopted by the Federal 

Court (under the authority of U.S. v. Oregon) and parties to the agreement include the 

states of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho; the Umatilla, Yakama, Nez Perce, and Warm 

Springs tribes; FWS; and NMFS. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: Priority recovery actions needed for this ESU include the 

following: 

•	 Continue to explore expansion of releases to multiple locations and at multiple lifehistory stages. 

•	 Expand captive propagation program size to maintain genetic diversity. 

•	 Expand marking of releases to evaluate habitat usage success and to identify downstream 

sources of mortality. 

•	 Improve survival in the migration corridor for adults and juveniles. 

•	 Continue the structural and operational modifications to hydropower dams to improve 

salmon survival in the migration corridor. 

•	 Continue to protect high-quality habitats. 

•	 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 3. The magnitude of threat to 

this ESU has been classified as high, because of strong risks to its abundance, productivity, 

spatial structure, and diversity (which largely have persisted since its status was first reviewed). 

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 not well understood and research is needed. 

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. 

69
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

Lower Columbia River Steelhead DPS (Oncorhynchus mykiss) 

Date Listed: March 19, 1998 (63 FR 13347); reclassified as a DPS January 5, 2006 (71 FR 834) 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: A recovery plan for the Washington portion of the DPS was completed 

by Washington’s Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board and, after public comment, approved by 

NMFS in February 2006 as an interim recovery plan. 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 the fall of 2009. 

Species Status: The estimated historical abundance (circa 1900) of the Lower Columbia River 

steelhead DPS is 220,000–280,000. At the time of the 2004–2006 Biennial Report, the mean 

natural-origin abundance was estimated to be approximately 6,000, and the mean combined 

abundance (including natural- and hatchery-origin fish) of the DPS was estimated to be 

approximately 8,600. The last formal review of DPS status, completed in 2005, indicated that 

the abundance and productivity of this DPS had remained unchanged since the time of listing. A 

preliminary assessment of trends based on the most recent 10 years of available data indicates 

that the Lower Columbia River steelhead DPS is “stable or increasing.” NMFS will conduct an 

ESA 5-year review of this DPS in 2010 and will update the available status and trend 

information at that time. 

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: During 2006–2008, key conservation actions included: 

•	 Hydropower operational changes and agreements for dam removal (See Box 3 on page 

42). 

•	 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 

(See Box 4 on page 43). 

•	 Hatchery reforms: The Hatchery Scientific Review Group evaluated hatchery programs 

to identify additional reforms needed to ensure that hatcheries benefit conservation 

efforts and reduce risks to the ESU. The Group is expected to issue a final report in early 

2009. NMFS and co-managers will use this report, along with additional science-based 

recommendations, to identify and implement additional reforms. 

70
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

•	 Improved management of in-river fisheries through the implementation of Fisheries 

Management and Evaluation Plans designed to minimize impacts from fisheries on wild 

steelhead. Reductions in impacts to juvenile steelhead from resident trout fisheries have 

been maintained; harvest impacts on wild steelhead are still reduced from a historical 

high of 75 percent to an overall impact of 8.5 percent. 

•	 Completion of the 2008 Federal Columbia River Power System Biological Opinion (see 

Box 5 on page 43). 

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 basin, 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 1. The magnitude of threat to this DPS has been 

classified as high, because of strong risks to its abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and 

diversity (which largely have persisted since its status was first reviewed). Delaying recovery 

for this DPS would likely result in mounting extinction risks rather than maintaining the status 

quo level of risk. The recovery potential for this DPS has also been classified as high. Although 

numerous factors limit the recovery of this DPS, the source of these factors and their 

demographic impacts are relatively well understood and recovery planning is currently 

underway. Although it may be cost-prohibitive to completely address every limiting factor, it is 

likely that integrated reduction of most threats can achieve recovery of this DPS. Finally, as a 

complex variety of activities and management practices continue to impact the conservation and 

recovery of all Pacific salmon and steelhead ESUs and DPSs listed under the ESA, NMFS has 

determined “conflict” exists with regard to this DPS. 

71
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

Puget Sound Steelhead DPS (Oncorhynchus mykiss) 

Date Listed: May 11, 2007 (72 FR 26722) 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: NFMS convened a TRT early in 2008 to identify the historical 

spawning populations of O. mykiss in Puget Sound and establish viability criteria for the listed 

DPS. Concurrent with the creation of the TRT, NMFS’ Northwest Regional Office began 

recovery planning for listed O. mykiss. NMFS began working on a draft recovery plan in 2008 

and is expects to be completed by 2010. 

Species Status: The estimated historical abundance (circa 1900) for the Puget Sound Steelhead 

DPS is 327,592–545,987. The estimated recent year (2004–2008) total natural-origin adult 

abundance for the Puget Sound steelhead DPS has fallen from historical abundance levels to a 

range of 15,000 to 25,000 fish. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife estimated the 

total natural origin steelhead adult abundance in 2006 for the 56 individual populations 

preliminarily delineated by the agency for the DPS to be 22,672 fish. NMFS will conduct an 

ESA 5-year review of this DPS in 2012 and will update the available status and trend 

information at that time. 

Limiting Factors and Threats: Primary biological concerns include: (1) the widespread 

declines in adult abundance (total run size), despite significant reductions in harvest in recent 

years; (2) the threats to diversity posed by use of two hatchery steelhead stocks (Chambers Creek 

and Skamania) inconsistent with wild stock diversity throughout the DPS; (3) the declining 

diversity in the DPS, including the uncertain but weak status of summer-run fish in the DPS; and 

(4) a reduction in spatial structure for steelhead in the DPS. 

Habitat utilization by steelhead has been most affected by reductions in habitat quality and by 

fragmentation. A number of large dams in Puget Sound basins have affected steelhead (see Box 

2 on page 39 for more explanation). 

Conservation Actions: Major accomplishments in 2006–2008 for this DPS include the 

following: 

•	 Improved forest management practices on Federal lands by continuing the Northwest 

Forest Plan Aquatic Conservation Strategy. The strategy is designed to conserve and 

restore salmon and steelhead habitat, and to provide 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. 

•	 Planned dam removal: Completed ESA section 7 consultation with the Olympic National 

Park on the removal of two dams on the Elwha River that have blocked salmon access to 

70 miles of habitat since the early 1900s. The removal of these two dams beginning in 

72
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

2012 will greatly aid salmon and steelhead recovery in this system. The project will 

restore freshwater habitat access, improve habitat conditions within the watershed, and 

improve estuary habitat at the mouth of the Elwha River. 

•	 Improved harvest and hatchery management: NMFS worked with the Washington State 

and Puget Sound tribal co-managers on the development of a harvest management plan 

for Puget Sound wild steelhead. 

•	 Implemented hatchery management modifications: The implementation of hatchery 

reform measures—based to a significant extent on recommendations developed 

independently by the Hatchery Scientific Review Group, and resulting from consultations 

between hatchery co-managers and NMFS—has led to operational changes that are 

expected to benefit natural steelhead populations. Specific threat reduction measures for 

hatcheries that will benefit natural populations are being developed by the co-managers 

for inclusion in 18 Hatchery and Genetic Management Plans to be submitted in final form 

to NMFS for evaluation and determination through ongoing NEPA and ESA review 

processes. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: Priority recovery actions needed for this DPS include the 

following: 

•	 Restore degraded floodplain and channel structure. 

•	 Improve and restore degraded riparian forests and increase recruitment of large woody 

debris. 

•	 Restore natural sediment routing processes. 

•	 Improve water quality, particularly stormwater from paved surfaces and developed lands. 

•	 Restore natural hydrologic processes and improve flow management. 

•	 Continue to apply measures that reduce the risk of adverse effects from hatchery and 

harvest management activities to survival and recovery. 

Recovery Priority Number: 1 

With a high magnitude of threat, high recovery potential, and the presence of conflict, this DPS 

has been assigned a recovery priority number of 1. The magnitude of threat to this DPS has been 

classified as high, because of strong risks to its abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and 

diversity (which largely have persisted since its status was first reviewed). Delaying 

implementation of actions to recover this DPS would likely result in a mounting extinction risk 

rather than maintaining the status quo level of risk. The recovery potential for this DPS has also 

been classified as high. Although numerous factors limit the recovery of this DPS, the source of 

these factors and their demographic impacts are somewhat understood and recovery planning is 

being initiated. Although it would be cost-prohibitive to completely address every limiting 

factor, there is a general belief that integrated reduction of most threats can eventually achieve 

recovery of this DPS. Finally, as a complex variety of activities and management practices 

continue to affect the conservation and recovery of all Pacific salmon DPSs and ESUs listed 

under the ESA, NMFS has determined “conflict” exists with regard to this DPS. 

73
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

Middle Columbia River Steelhead DPS (Oncorhynchus mykiss) 

Date Listed: March 25, 1999(64 FR 14517); reclassified as a DPS January 5, 2006 (71 FR 834) 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: A draft recovery plan summarizes proposed locally developed 

(management unit) recovery plans for the Lower Snake, Yakima, Columbia Gorge, and Oregon 

management units. Notices of Availability for the draft interim regional recovery plans for the 

Yakima sub-basin and the Lower Snake management unit were published in the Federal Register 

in 2006 (71 FR 26052 and 71 FR 13094, respectively). A final recovery plan is anticipated by 

August 2009. 

Species Status: The estimated historical abundance (circa 1900) of the Middle Columbia River 

steelhead DPS is 90,000–115,000. At the time of the 2004–2006 Biennial Report, the mean 

natural-origin abundance was estimated to be approximately 20,400, and the mean combined 

abundance (including natural- and hatchery-origin fish) of the DPS was estimated to be 

approximately 29,100. The last formal review of DPS status, completed in 2005, indicated that 

the abundance and productivity of this DPS had remained unchanged since the time of listing. A 

preliminary assessment of trends based on the most recent 10 years of available data indicates 

that the Middle Columbia River steelhead DPS is “stable or increasing.” NMFS will conduct an 

ESA 5-year review of this DPS in 2010 and will update the available status and trend 

information at that time. 

Limiting Factors and Threats: The limiting factors and threats for this DPS include: 

•	 Degraded freshwater habitat: Floodplain connectivity and function, channel structure and 

complexity, riparian areas, fish passage, stream substrate, stream flow, and water quality 

have been degraded as a result of cumulative impacts of agriculture, forestry, tributary 

hydro system activities, and development. 

•	 Mainstem Columbia River hydropower-related impacts. 

•	 Hatchery-related effects (see Box 1 on page 39). 

•	 Harvest-related effects. 

Conservation Actions: During 2006–2008, key conservation actions included: 

•	 Accomplished hydropower operational changes. 

•	 Conducted local habitat restoration projects, including reconnecting streams and side 

channels (e.g., Meacham and Iskuulpa creeks in the Umatilla Basin and Wilson Creek 

and Manastash Creek in the Yakima River). Conservation easements and land purchases 

of riparian areas along rivers and streams were used to protect critical spawning and 

rearing areas. The Farm Service Agency’s Conservation Reserve and Enhancement 

Program has been used to establish riparian areas on farms and ranches in some 

watersheds (notably the Walla Walla River Basin). 

•	 Opened more than 25 miles of habitat with completion of passage project on Birch Creek 

(tributary to the Umatilla River). 

•	 Saved water and provided adult and juvenile passage with completion of Lower Touchet 

River Irrigation Diversion Project. 

74
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

•	 Conducted complex negotiations each season through the U.S. v. Oregon forum to direct 

Columbia River harvest rates and fishery structure for the protection of listed steelhead. 

•	 Equipped dozens of irrigation diversion withdrawals with screens, leading to greater 

productivity and abundance. 

•	 Conducted water conservation projects in over-appropriated streams (where available 

water is insufficient to meet existing water rights) to transfer water rights to a state trust 

water program. 

•	 Continued to operate the Warm Springs National Fish Hatchery weir to remove hatchery 

steelhead, creating natural-origin steelhead refuge in upper Warms Springs River. 

•	 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. 

•	 Completed the 2008 Federal Columbia River Power System Biological Opinion (see Box 

5 on page 43). 

•	 Protected 12 ESUs and steelhead DPSs in the Columbia Basin through a 2008 agreement 

and NMFS ESA Biological Opinion for managing Columbia River tribal and non-tribal 

fishing. The new agreement and Biological Opinion have been adopted by the Federal 

Court (under the authority of U.S. v. Oregon) and parties to the agreement include the 

states of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho; the Umatilla, Yakama, Nez Perce, and Warm 

Springs tribes; FWS; and NMFS. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: Priority recovery actions needed for this DPS include the 

following: 

•	 Protect high-quality habitat, particularly productive, sensitive floodplain habitats. 

•	 Improve fish passage at barriers along the migration corridor. 

•	 Increase instream flows in priority streams and achieve more normative flow regimes in 

watersheds regulated by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 

•	 Restore habitat and increase habitat complexity. 

•	 Comprehensively mark all hatchery-produced steelhead to identify and remove hatchery 

strays, and to determine source of the out-of-basin strays. 

•	 Continue implementation of Phase III of Umatilla Water Rights Project. 

•	 Continue Yakima Basin steelhead kelt reconditioning program and initiate similar 

programs in other Middle Columbia basins. 

•	 Continue to develop locally adapted populations for steelhead mitigation hatchery 

programs and provide facility improvements (e.g., Dayton Acclimation Pond Trap) to 

collect broodstock and manage returning adult steelhead. 

Recovery Priority Number: 1 

With a high magnitude of threat, high recovery potential, and the presence of conflict, this DPS 

has been assigned a recovery priority number of 1. The magnitude of threat to this DPS has been 

classified as high, because of strong risks to its abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and 

diversity (which largely have persisted since its status was first reviewed). 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 

75
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

underway. Although it may be cost-prohibitive to completely address every limiting factor, it is 

likely that integrated reduction of most threats can achieve recovery of this DPS. Finally, as a 

complex variety of activities and management practices continue to impact the conservation and 

recovery of all Pacific salmon ESU/DPSs listed under the ESA, NMFS has determined “conflict” 

exists with regard to this DPS. 

76
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

Snake River Basin Steelhead DPS (Oncorhynchus mykiss) 

Date Listed: August 18, 1997 (62 FR 43937); reclassified as a DPS January 5, 2006 

(71 FR 834) 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: A draft recovery plan for this DPS is expected in 2010. 

Species Status: The estimated historical abundance (circa 1900) of the Snake River steelhead 

DPS is 275,000–375,000. At the time of the 2004–2006 Biennial Report, the mean naturalorigin abundance was estimated to be approximately 28,400, and the mean combined abundance 

(including natural- and hatchery-origin fish) of the DPS was estimated to be approximately 

189,300. The last formal review of DPS status, completed in 2005, indicated that the abundance 

and productivity of this DPS had remained unchanged since the time of listing. A preliminary 

assessment of trends based on the most recent 10 years of available data indicates that the Snake 

River steelhead DPS is “stable or increasing.” NMFS will conduct an ESA 5-year review of this 

DPS in 2010 and will update the available status and trend information at that time. 

Limiting Factors and Threats: Limiting factors and threats to the Snake River Basin Steelhead 

DPS include the following: 

•	 Mainstem Columbia River hydropower-related adverse effects. 

•	 Degraded freshwater habitat: Floodplain connectivity and function, channel structure and 

complexity, riparian areas and large woody debris recruitment, stream flow, and water 

quality have been degraded as a result of cumulative impacts of agriculture, forestry, and 

development. 

•	 Impaired water quality and increased water temperature. 

•	 Related harvest effects, particularly for B-run steelhead. 

•	 Predation. 

Conservation Actions: During 2006–2008, key conservation actions included: 

•	 Accomplished structural and operational modification to hydropower system. 

•	 Improved federal land management practices by working with the U.S. Forest Service 

and Bureau of Land Management to design land management plans to protect and restore 

habitat. 

•	 Improved water quality permitting procedures by working with the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency to develop procedures that enhance salmon considerations. 

•	 Conducted local habitat restoration and restoration of stream flows. This includes efforts 

by the Northwest Power Planning Council Fish and Wildlife Program, Pacific Coast 

Salmon Restoration Fund, Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the NOAA 

Restoration Center. 

•	 Equipped hundreds of irrigation diversions with fish screens. 

•	 Reduced overall harvest rates. 

•	 Conducted efforts in hatchery conservation. 

77
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

•	 Worked to improve water quantity via the Snake River basin adjudication settlement 

of water claims between the Nez Pierce Tribe and the State of Idaho, including a 

program to improve instream flows in the Lemhi River. 

•	 Completed the 2008 Federal Columbia River Power System Biological Opinion (see 

Box 5 on page 43). 

•	 Protected 12 ESUs and steelhead DPSs in the Columbia Basin through a 2008 

agreement and NMFS ESA Biological Opinion for managing Columbia River tribal 

and non-tribal fishing. The new agreement and Biological Opinion have been adopted 

by the Federal Court (under the authority of U.S. v. Oregon) and parties to the 

agreement include the states of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho; the Umatilla, 

Yakama, Nez Perce, and Warm Springs tribes; FWS; and NMFS. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: Priority recovery actions needed for this DPS include the 

following: 

•	 Continue the structural and operational modifications to hydropower dams to improve 

salmon survival in the migration corridor. 

•	 Protect high-quality habitats. 

•	 Conduct habitat restoration. 

•	 Increase instream flows. 

•	 Complete and implement Fishery Management and Evaluation Plans and Tribal Resource 

Management Plans for tributary fisheries. 

•	 Implement harvest agreements from U.S. v. Oregon. 

•	 Complete and implement Hatchery and Genetic Management Plans. 

•	 Control predation. 

Recovery Priority Number: 1 

With a high magnitude of threat, high recovery potential, and the presence of conflict, this DPS 

has been assigned a recovery priority number of 1. The magnitude of threat to this DPS has been 

classified as high, because of strong risks to its abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and 

diversity (which largely have persisted since its status was first reviewed). Delaying recovery 

for this DPS would likely result in mounting extinction risks rather than maintaining the status 

quo level of risk. The recovery potential for this DPS has also been classified as high. Although 

numerous factors limit the recovery of this DPS, the source of these factors and their 

demographic impacts are relatively well understood and recovery planning is currently 

underway. Although it may be cost-prohibitive to completely address every limiting factor, it is 

likely that integrated reduction of most threats can achieve recovery of this DPS. Finally, as a 

complex variety of activities and management practices continue to impact the conservation and 

recovery of all Pacific salmon species listed under the ESA, NMFS has determined “conflict” 

exists with regard to this DPS. 

78
 
 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

Upper Columbia River Steelhead DPS (Oncorhynchus mykiss) 

Date Listed: Listed as endangered on August 18, 1997 (62 FR 43937), and upgraded and 

reclassified from endangered ESU to threatened DPS on January 5, 2006 (71 FR 834). 

Legal Status: Endangered10 

Recovery Plan Status: A proposed ESA recovery plan was completed and approved by both 

the Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Board and NMFS in July 2006. The final ESA recovery 

plan for this DPS was completed in September 2007. 

Species Status: The estimated historical abundance (circa 1900) of the Upper Columbia River 

steelhead DPS is 17,000–22,000. At the time of the 2004–2006 Biennial Report, the mean 

natural-origin abundance was estimated to be approximately 3,100, and the mean combined 

abundance (including natural- and hatchery-origin fish) of the DPS was estimated to be 

approximately 15,300. The last formal review of DPS status, completed in 2005, indicated that 

the abundance and productivity of this DPS had remained unchanged since the time of listing. A 

preliminary assessment of trends based on the most recent 10 years of available data indicates 

that the Upper Columbia River steelhead DPS is “stable or increasing.” NMFS will conduct an 

ESA 5-year review of this DPS in 2010 and will update the available status and trend 

information at that time. 

Limiting Factors and Threats: The limiting factors and threats for this DPS include: 

•	 Mainstem Columbia River hydropower-related adverse effects. 

•	 Degraded freshwater habitat: Floodplain connectivity and function, channel structure and 

complexity, riparian areas and large woody debris recruitment, stream flow, and water 

quality have been degraded as a result of cumulative impacts of agriculture, forestry, and 

development. 

•	 Hatchery-related effects (see Box 1 on page 39). 

•	 Harvest-related effects. 

Conservation Actions: During 2006–2008, key conservation actions included: 

•	 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. 

•	 Equipped 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. 

10 Pursuant to the decision in Trout Unlimited v. Lohn, 559 F.3d 946 (9th Cir., March 16, 2009), the status of this ESU will be changed to 

threatened. 

79
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

•	 Made hatchery program operational changes to benefit listed steelhead by reducing risks 

of hatchery reared steelhead. 

•	 Through 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. 

•	 Completed the 2008 Federal Columbia River Power System Biological Opinion (see Box 

5 on page 43). 

•	 Protected 12 ESUs and steelhead DPSs in the Columbia Basin through a 2008 agreement 

and NMFS ESA Biological Opinion for managing Columbia River tribal and non-tribal 

fishing. The new agreement and Biological Opinion have been adopted by the Federal 

Court (under the authority of U.S. v. Oregon) and parties to the agreement include the 

states of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho; the Umatilla, Yakama, Nez Perce, and Warm 

Springs tribes; FWS; and NMFS. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: Priority recovery actions needed for this DPS include the 

following: 

•	 Protect high-quality habitat—particularly productive, sensitive floodplain habitats—from 

residential development. 

•	 Improve fish passage at barriers along the migration corridor. 

•	 Improve instream flows in priority tributaries. 

•	 Restore habitat and increase habitat complexity. 

•	 Update and complete Hatchery and Genetic Management Plans. 

Recovery Priority Number: 1 

With a high magnitude of threat, high recovery potential, and the presence of conflict, this DPS 

has been assigned a recovery priority number of 1. The magnitude of threat to this DPS has been 

classified as high, because of strong risks to its abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and 

diversity (which largely have persisted since its status was first reviewed). Delaying recovery 

for this DPS would likely result in mounting extinction risks rather than maintaining the status 

quo level of risk. The recovery potential for this DPS has also been classified as high. Although 

numerous factors limit the recovery of this DPS, the source of these factors and their 

demographic impacts are relatively well understood and recovery planning is currently 

underway. Although it may be cost-prohibitive to completely address every limiting factor, it is 

likely that integrated reduction of most threats can achieve recovery of this DPS. Finally, as a 

complex variety of activities and management practices continue to impact the conservation and 

recovery of all Pacific salmon ESU/DPSs listed under the ESA, NMFS has determined “conflict” 

exists with regard to this DPS. 

80
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

Upper Willamette River Steelhead DPS (Oncorhynchus mykiss) 

Date Listed: March 25, 1999 (64 FR 14517); reclassified as a DPS January 5, 2006 (71 FR 834) 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: A draft recovery plan for the DPS was released in September 2007 and 

a final recovery plan is expected in 2010. 

Species Status: The estimated historical abundance (circa 1900) of the Upper Willamette River 

steelhead DPS is 175,000–225,000. At the time of the 2004–2006 Biennial Report, the mean 

natural-origin abundance was estimated to be approximately 7,800, and the mean combined 

abundance (including natural- and hatchery-origin fish) of the DPS was estimated to be 

approximately 10,400. The last formal review of DPS status, completed in 2005, indicated that 

the abundance and productivity of this DPS had remained unchanged since the time of listing. A 

preliminary assessment of trends based on the most recent 10 years of available data indicates 

that the Upper Willamette River steelhead DPS is “stable or increasing.” NMFS will conduct an 

ESA 5-year review of this ESU in 2010 and will update the available status and trend 

information at that time. 

Limiting Factors and Threats: Threats and impacts to the Upper Willamette River Steelhead 

DPS include the following: 

•	 Degraded freshwater habitat: Floodplain connectivity and function, channel structure and 

complexity, riparian areas and large wood recruitment, and stream flow have been 

degraded as a result of cumulative impacts of agriculture, forestry, and development. 

•	 Degraded water quality and altered temperature as a result of both tributary dams and the 

cumulative impacts of agriculture, forestry, and urban development. 

•	 Reduced access to spawning and rearing habitats mainly as a result of artificial barriers in 

spawning tributaries. 

•	 Hatchery-related effects: Impacts from the non-native summer steelhead hatchery 

program. 

Conservation Actions: During 2006–2008, key conservation actions included: 

•	 Completed ESA section 7 consultation between NMFS and the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and Bonneville Power Administration on the 

continued operation of 13 multipurpose dams in the Willamette Basin. Beneficial actions 

to the ESU include: enhanced upstream fish passage facilities (the dams block access to 

some historical spawning habitat for this DPS), retrofitting of dams to provide more 

normative temperature regimes below the projects that affect steelhead spawning and 

rearing, enhanced downstream passage of juvenile steelhead at certain projects, and 

enhanced flow management to ensure safe migration, spawning, incubation, and rearing 

of steelhead. 

•	 Conducted ESA consultation at hydroelectric projects as part of FERC re-licensing, new 

licenses, and settlement agreements. Benefits to salmonids include improved 

streamflows, habitat restoration, gravel augmentation below dams for spawning, and 

81
 
 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

improved upstream and downstream fish passage at dams. Improvements were made at 

Willamette Falls Dam, Albany/Lebanon Dam, and Upper Bennett Dam. 

•	 As a result of funding from NMFS’ Open River Initiative, removed the Brownsville Dam 

on the Calapooia River in 2008. Another dam is slated for removal in 2009. 

•	 Conducted hundreds of habitat restoration projects that have improved riparian areas, fish 

passage at culvert barriers, and stream and floodplain function. ESA section 7 

programmatic consultation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was completed in 

2008 to expedite permitting of these types of salmonid recovery actions. 

•	 Improved forest management practices on federal lands by continuing the Northwest 

Forest Plan Aquatic Conservation Strategy. The strategy is designed to conserve and 

restore salmon and steelhead habitat, and to provide an anchor for federal lands’ 

contribution to salmon recovery. The U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land 

Management worked with NMFS in 2006 to develop a programmatic approach to 

designing and approving timber sales that would result in minimal impacts to salmonids. 

•	 Completed and implemented an ESA consultation on cleanup of a Superfund site in the 

lower Willamette River at an abandoned creosote plant in 2007 to provide increased 

water quality for migrating and rearing juvenile salmonids. 

•	 Modified hatchery programs to reduce the effects of non-native summer steelhead 

hatchery fish on native, naturally produced winter steelhead populations. 

•	 Made reforms to catch-and-release fisheries to substantially reduce harvest impacts to 

winter steelhead. 

•	 Completed the 2008 Federal Columbia River Power System Biological Opinion (see Box 

5 on page 43). 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: Priority recovery actions needed for this DPS include the 

following: 

•	 Implement the new recovery actions described in the section 7 biological opinion on the 

13 federal dams in the Willamette Basin (an ESA consultation between NMFS and the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and Bonneville Power 

Administration). 

•	 Improve land use practices to protect existing high-quality habitat and prevent further 

degradation, along with continued, targeted restoration of other priority locations and 

issues identified in the draft recovery plan. Protection and restoration are particularly 

important in lowland floodplain stream reaches where channel complexity and floodplain 

connectivity are severely degraded. 

•	 Work with local stakeholders in the Molalla River Subbasin to secure enhanced riparian 

and upland management protections in the priority areas for salmonid spawning and 

rearing. 

•	 Reduce point and non-point sources of thermal and toxic pollution and continue clean-up 

efforts for contaminated stream areas where juvenile steelhead live. 

Recovery Priority Number: 1 

With a high magnitude of threat, high recovery potential, and the presence of conflict, this DPS 

has been assigned a recovery priority number of 1. The magnitude of threat to this DPS has been 

classified as high, because of strong risks to its abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and 

diversity (which largely have persisted since its status was first reviewed). Delaying recovery 

82
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

for this DPS would likely result in mounting extinction risks rather than maintaining the status 

quo level of risk. The recovery potential for this DPS has also been classified as high. Although 

numerous factors limit the recovery of this DPS, the source of these factors and their 

demographic impacts are relatively well understood and recovery planning is currently 

underway. Although it may be cost-prohibitive to completely address every limiting factor, it is 

likely that integrated reduction of most threats can achieve recovery of this DPS. Finally, as a 

complex variety of activities and management practices continue to impact the conservation and 

recovery of all Pacific salmon and steelhead ESUs and DPSs listed under the ESA, NMFS has 

determined “conflict” exists with regard to this DPS. 

83
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

Salmon Recovery Overlapping the Northwest and Southwest 

Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast Coho ESU (Oncorhynchus 

kisutch) 

Date Listed: May 6, 1997 (62 FR 24588); reaffirmed June 28, 2005 (70 FR 37160) 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: A Recovery Outline was completed in December 2007 and a draft 

recovery plan is expected to be released for public review in the fall of 2009. 

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 (ODFW) stock # 52), 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. 

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. 

Weak returns of coho salmon were recorded in 2007 and indications of an extremely weak 2008 

coho salmon return in several California and Oregon 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 Eel, Trinity, Klamath, and Rogue river 

systems. The high hatchery production, especially in the Trinity River Basin, 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, spatial 

structure, diversity, and population abundance have remained unchanged, and are severely 

depressed throughout most of the ESU. 

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 agricultural, 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 

84
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

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 is recognized as a primary cause of habitat 

degradation throughout the range of this ESU. Most of the primary 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 Environmental Protection Agency in the 1990s. 

Critical sources of current threats to this DPS include: (1) road construction, maintenance, and 

use; (2) forestry practices; (3) agriculture and related activities (range and crop); (4) fish passage 

barriers; (5) fire, fire suppression, and related activities; (6) dam and diversion operations, (7) 

hatchery operations; (8) urbanization; (9) diking/levee construction/channelization and 

maintenance; (10) poaching/harvest; (11) disease/predators; (12) land conversion; and (13) 

mining, gravel extraction, and related activities. 

As a result of past and current threats, the following stresses are prevalent throughout the range 

of this ESU and affect most populations to some degree: (1) lack of floodplain and channel 

structure, (2) impaired estuarine function, (3) altered sediment supply, (4) altered hydrologic 

function, (5) impaired water quality, (6) degraded riparian forest conditions, (7) increased 

disease and predation, and (8) barriers impeding fish passage. 

Conservation Actions: During 2006–2008, key conservation actions included: 

•	 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 in northern California and southern Oregon, and continued to work with these 

agencies on issues regarding fire fuel treatments. 

•	 Conducted over 250 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. 

•	 Continued collaboration with Humboldt, Del Norte, and Mendocino counties on the 

Humboldt, Del Norte, and Mendocino Gravel Plans. 

•	 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. 

•	 Continued working with the Bureau of Reclamation on the Klamath Project 10-Year 

Biological Opinion, the Rogue River Basin Project Biological Opinion, and the Savage 

Rapids Dam removal and irrigation pump installation work by completing the first phase 

of Dam removal and the temporary instillation of irrigation pumps. 

•	 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. 

•	 Developed a database of summer dams and commenced proactive efforts to engage with 

landowners to minimize the effects of such dams. 

85
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

•	 Engaged in on-site reviews of timber operations, and implemented the “Salmonid 

Guidelines for Forest Practices” when evaluating non-federal timber harvest operations. 

•	 Worked on the Pacific Lumber Company Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). The 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. 

•	 Collaborated with Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District on the development of a HCP 

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. 

Subsequent monitoring of this effort has shown dramatic decreases in coho mortality and 

is now considered a template for other water districts to emulate. 

•	 Continued working with a variety of entities on restoration activities that will restore 

Pacific salmon habitat and address man-made barriers to adult and juvenile salmon 

passage. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: Several priority recovery actions are needed for the 

SONCC coho salmon ESU, including the following: 

•	 Research and monitor distribution, status, and trends of salmon. 

•	 Complete and fund a population-monitoring plan. 

•	 Develop Hatchery and Genetics Management Plans to minimize negative influences of 

hatcheries in California. 

•	 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, develop passive diversion devices or off-stream 

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) 

programs. 

•	 Fund and remove/upgrade high-priority man-made fish passage barriers (e.g., 

watercourse crossings and non-hydropower dams). 

•	 Implement screening of all water diversion structures on fish-bearing streams. 

•	 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. 

86
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

Recovery Priority Number: 1 

Ranking for the SONCC 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 conducting an updated 

status review in 2004 stated 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, Trinity, and Eel 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 underway. 

Forestry is the predominant land use; however, high levels of forest conversion to agriculture and 

urbanization has occurred/is occurring, and water storage and diversions still affect many 

SONCC coho populations. 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. 

87
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

Salmon Recovery in the Southwest
 

Northern California Steelhead DPS (Oncorhynchus mykiss) 

Date Listed: June 7, 

2000 (65 FR 36074) and 

reaffirmed January 5, 

2006 (71 FR 834) 

Legal Status: 

Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: 

The Recovery Outline 

was completed and 

signed July 16, 2007. 

A Draft Multi-Species (Northern California (NC) steelhead, Coastal California (CC) Chinook, 

Central California Coast (CCC) steelhead) Recovery Plan is in development and is expected to 

be finalized in 2010. 

Species Status: The 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. 

New data for the 2005 status review showed both upward and downward population trends. The 

Middle Fork Eel River and Mad River portions showed a downward trend in adult returns, while 

juvenile abundance for 10 independent populations showed both upward and downward trends. 

Overall, the 2005 status review shows that the DPS was declining during the time for which data 

were available. 

The two artificial propagation programs that are part of the NC 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 NC steelhead 

DPS remain likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future. 

Photo credit: Josh Fuller, NMFS, from Eel River, California 

88
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

Threats and Impacts: The following limiting factors, and their level of threat to this DPS, were 

evaluated during the development of the Internal Draft Multi-Species Recovery Plan: 

Degraded Habitat-Estuarine and Nearshore Marine: High Threat 

Degraded Habitat-Floodplain Connectivity and Function: Moderate to High Threat 

Degraded Habitat-Channel Structure and Complexity: Moderate Threat 

Degraded Habitat-Riparian Areas and LWD Recruitment: Moderate Threat 

Degraded Habitat-Stream Substrate: Moderate to High Threat 

Degraded Habitat-Stream Flow: Moderate Threat 

Degraded Habitat-Water Quality: Moderate to High Threat 

Degraded Habitat-Fish Passage: High Threat 

Hatchery-related Adverse Effects: Low Threat 

Harvest-related Adverse Effects: Moderate to High Threat 

Predation/Competition/ Disease: High Threat 

California’s non-federal forest harvest operations are identified in the final listing notice as a 

critical threat to this DPS. Although this threat continues, California is revising their Forest 

Practice Rules with the intent to protect watersheds with anadromous salmonids. Final Rules are 

anticipated to be adopted by the Governor-appointed Board of Forestry in 2009. 

Other critical sources of threats to this DPS include: (1) lack of oversight on county grading 

activities that may affect steelhead; (2) water use, riparian forest removal, erosion, road building, 

and other practices associated with agricultural operations; (3) changes to channel morphology 

and reduced floodplain connectivity due to levee construction, flood control structures, roads, 

erosion control structures, and urbanization; (4) urbanization and rural development leading to 

reduced riparian forests, pollution, unscreened water diversions, and water demands exceeding 

availability; (5) potential genetic modification in hatchery stocks resulting from domestication 

selection; (6) incidental mortality from catch-and-release hooking; (7) climatic variation leading 

to drought, flooding, and variable ocean conditions; and (8) predation. 

Conservation Actions: 

•	 Continuing to work with California Board of Forestry as they propose to revise their 

forest practice rules to provide for salmonids and their habitats. 

•	 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 for instream flow, gravel mining, summer dams. 

•	 Encouraging FishNet 4C, a multi-county group, dedicating resources to county 

restoration activities focused on salmon and steelhead restoration. 

•	 Continued improvements to coho salmon captive broodstock activities at Warm Springs 

Dam. 

•	 Continued participation with PCSRF Grant program. 

89
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

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 the California Board of Forestry regarding non-federal timber 

harvest operations and possible statewide forestry plan. 

•	 Promote operations of current recovery hatcheries and develop Hatchery and Genetics 

Management Plans to minimize negative influences of hatcheries. 

•	 Improve freshwater habitat quantity and quality. 

•	 Protect and restore habitat complexity and connectivity from the upper watershed to the 

ocean. 

•	 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, 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: 5 

The recovery priority number for the NC steelhead DPS is based on a moderate degree of threat, 

a high recovery potential, and anticipated conflict with development projects or other economic 

activity. A majority of the BRT that conducted the most recent status review of steelhead 

populations in Washington, Oregon, and California concluded that natural populations of NC 

steelhead are likely to become endangered. Abundance and productivity were of concern, while 

spatial structure and diversity were of lower concern. Uncertainty resulting from lack of data 

was considered by the BRT to be a source of risk, especially for the winter run portion of this 

DPS. Due to the lack of data, the recovery priority number will be reevaluated in the future as 

the recovery plan is developed. A high potential for recovery exists for the 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. 

90
 
 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

California Central Valley Steelhead DPS (Oncorhynchus mykiss) 

Date Listed: March 19, 1998(63 

FR 13347), reaffirmed January 5, 

2006 (71 FR 834) 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: 

A multi-species recovery plan that 

includes updated information for 

this ESU is under development. A 

public review draft is expected to 

be completed in June 2009, and a 

final recovery plan is expected in 

November 2009. 

Species Status: The 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. 

Existing wild steelhead stocks in the Central Valley are mostly confined to the upper Sacramento 

River and its tributaries, including Clear, Antelope, Deer, and Mill creeks and the Yuba River. 

Populations may exist in Big Chico and Butte Creeks and a few wild steelhead are produced in 

the American and Feather rivers. Recent monitoring has detected small self-sustaining 

populations of steelhead in the Stanislaus, Mokelumne, and Calaveras rivers, and other streams 

previously thought to be devoid of steelhead. It is possible that naturally spawning populations 

exist in many other streams but are undetected due to a lack of monitoring programs. 

Two artificial propagation programs are considered to be part of the CV steelhead DPS—the 

Feather River Fish Hatchery population and the Coleman National Fish Hatchery population. 

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. 

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. 

Steelhead produced from hatcheries have been widely stocked throughout the Central Valley, 

Sierra Nevada, and southern Cascades. Stocking may have deleterious effects on native wild 

populations. There are reports of native wild populations in some areas having received stocked 

fish. Identification of any particular resident populations that may be part of the CV steelhead 

DPS has not been possible due to the lack of sufficient status and trend data. 

91
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

Central Valley steelhead have shown a pattern of a negative growth since the late 1960s. It is 

estimated that an average of 20,540 adult steelhead occurred in the Sacramento River, upstream 

of the Feather River through the 1960s. Based on counts at the Red Bluff Diversion Dam, 

steelhead declined from an average of about 8,000 fish for the period 1967–1977, to an average 

of approximately 2,000 through the early 1990s, with an estimated total annual run size for the 

entire Sacramento–San Joaquin system to be no more than 10,000 adults. Estimates in steelhead 

escapement surveys ended in 1993 due to changes in operations at the Red Bluff Diversion Dam 

that affected the counting facilities. More recently, steelhead smolt catch ratios at Chipps Island 

trawl from 1998 through 2001 estimated that about 100,000 to 300,000 steelhead juveniles are 

produced naturally each year in the Central Valley, which generally corresponds to an adult 

female population of approximately 3,628. 

Central Valley steelhead populations generally show a continuing decline, an overall low 

abundance, and fluctuating return rates. The future of this DPS is uncertain due to limited data 

concerning their status. However, based on the information available at this time, there is 

sufficient evidence to suggest that the DPS is at moderate to high risk of extinction. 

Threats and Impacts: Many stressors and threats are contributing to the decline of Central 

Valley steelhead, including dams, water diversions, levee construction and management, water 

quality, predation by non-native fish, and hatchery management. The primary limiting factor to 

the CV steelhead DPS is the inaccessibility of more than 95 percent of its historic spawning and 

rearing habitat due to impassable dams. This DPS requires cool water found at higher 

elevations, now largely above impassable dams. The lack of adequate status and trend 

monitoring and research limits our understanding of the viability of this DPS and our ability to 

determine how steelhead populations may have interacted before the dams were built. 

The degraded and declining ecological condition of the Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta 

also is one of the most highly ranked threats to this ESU. The Delta has been substantially 

modified from its historic condition, and large water withdrawals, water quality problems, 

habitat degradation and loss, and introduced predatory fish species severely affect juvenile 

salmon growth and survival. 

Conservation Actions: During 2006–2008, 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 Anadromous Fish Restoration Program (AFRP) (See Box 6 on page 93) funded a state-ofthe-art fish ladder on Antelope Creek, a small spring-run watershed with high restoration 

potential. The AFRP, in cooperation with NMFS and the California Department of Fish and 

Game (CDFG) are working with landowners on Antelope Creek to restore flows and habitat 

below agricultural diversions to increase the upstream and downstream survival of migrating 

spring-run fish. 

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 

92
 
 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

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. 

In 2007, NMFS took a successful 

cooperative approach to ensuring 

access to fish habitat past hydropower 

dams on the Feather River in 

California. Through the Feather River 

Habitat Expansion Agreement, NMFS 

creatively worked with energy 

companies, conservation groups, other 

federal agencies, and state resource 

agencies to develop a consensus 

approach to providing both migratory 

fish passage and energy generation. 

The Agreement will provide ESAlisted Central Valley Spring-run 

Chinook salmon and Central Valley 

steelhead more habitat for spawning, 

rearing, and other critical life stages. 

The Agreement was created to 

Box 6. Central Valley Conservation Programs 

Two large, ongoing conservation programs in the Central Valley 

provide a wide range of ecosystem and species-specific protective 

efforts benefiting Chinook salmon; the CALFED Ecosystem 

Restoration Program, and the Central Valley Project Improvement 

Act’s (CVPIA) AFRP. The CALFED Ecosystem Restoration Program 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, and has made efforts to 

restore the San Francisco Bay-Delta. The 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. 

The CVPIA’s AFRP balances the priorities of fish and wildlife 

protection, restoration, and mitigation with irrigation, domestic 

water use, fish and wildlife enhancement, and power augmentation. 

The Bureau of Reclamation and FWS have conducted studies and 

implemented hundreds of actions, including modifications of Central 

Valley Project operations, management and acquisition of water for 

fish and wildlife needs, flow management for fish migration and 

passage, increased water flows, replenishment of spawning gravels, 

restoration of riparian habitats, and screening of water diversions. 

Actions in the Sacramento River tributaries have focused on riparian 

and shaded riverine aquatic habitat restoration, improved access to 

available upstream habitat, improved instream flows, and reduced 

loss of juveniles at diversions. 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). 

collectively resolve blockages to migratory fish passage at the Oroville, Poe, Upper North Fork 

Feather River, and Rock Creek-Cresta hydropower dams. 

Ongoing measures to protect steelhead in California include 100 percent marking of all hatchery 

steelhead, zero bag limits for unmarked steelhead, gear restrictions, closures, and size limits 

designed to protect smolts. The State also works closely with NMFS to review and improve 

inland fishing regulations. 

Implementation of the Oroville Facility’s Habitat Expansion Agreement will increase the 

abundance and range of Central Valley steelhead. Additionally, implementation of the Feather 

River Oroville Hydroelectric Facility’s Fish Habitat Management Plan will restore habitats 

below Oroville Dam and reduce the interaction between hatchery and wild fish in the Feather 

River. 

The CDFG—with the technical and scientific support of the Pacific States Marine Fisheries 

Commission, NMFS, and FWS—is preparing a comprehensive Central Valley Steelhead 

93
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

Monitoring Plan. The goal of this project is to develop a comprehensive monitoring plan for CV 

steelhead, that, when implemented, will provide fishery managers the data necessary to assess 

steelhead population status and trends. This information is necessary as part of an overall 

strategy to ensure steelhead conservation and is critical to moving forward on numerous 

management and recovery efforts. The benefits of developing a monitoring program include: 

•	 Providing a sound basis for implementing protective measures and assessing recovery of 

listed stocks. 

•	 Assisting in the evaluation of restoration projects, such as those implemented and funded 

through the CVPIA, the AFRP, and the CALFED Ecosystem Restoration Program. 

•	 Fulfilling regulatory needs to assess and quantify population impacts from authorized 

activities such as water diversions, fisheries, and hatchery programs. 

•	 Evaluating the contribution of hatchery fish to CV steelhead populations. 

•	 Providing life history information to help improve the management of steelhead in the 

Central Valley. 

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. Implementation of the Central Valley Steelhead Monitoring 

Program is critical for assessing population viability and responses to extensive habitat 

restoration efforts funded by CALFED and CVPIA. 

The Battle Creek Restoration Project is a priority action that is expected to add 42 miles of 

spawning habitat for this ESU. Battle Creek will be 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 water rights to fish. Passage to 

habitats upstream of Shasta and Keswick dams are also considered critical for improving the 

viability of this species. 

Restoring the ecological health of the Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta and lower 

Sacramento River through significant changes in water and levee management, and reducing the 

abundance of non-native predatory fish, are other important recovery actions. Another important 

Delta action will be evaluating and implementing alternatives to conveyance of water south of 

the Delta that minimize/eliminate fish entrainment at existing facilities while allowing the Delta 

to function as a restored estuary. 

The management of put-and-take fisheries immediately upstream from anadromous populations 

is an ongoing concern due to the risk to wild Central Valley Steelhead in Antelope Creek, Battle 

Creek, Deer Creek, and other watersheds throughout the Central Valley. Hatchery reforms need 

to be implemented to reduce the risk of genetic introgression from out-of-basin hatchery stocks. 

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 

94
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

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). The potential for conflict exists because of anticipated future development and 

habitat degradation issues, as well as increasing demands for Central Valley water supplies. 

95
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

Central California Coast Steelhead DPS (Oncorhynchus mykiss) 

Date Listed: August 18, 1997 (62 

FR 43937), reaffirmed January 5, 

2006 (71 FR 834) 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: 

The Recovery Outline was 

completed and signed May 31, 

2007. A Draft Multi-Species (NC 

steelhead, CC Chinook, CCC 

steelhead) Recovery Plan is in 

development and is expected to be finalized in 2010. 

Species Status: The CCC steelhead DPS includes all naturally spawned populations of 

steelhead in coastal streams from the Russian River to Aptos Creek, and the drainages of San 

Francisco, San Pablo, and Suisun Bays eastward to Chipps Island at the confluence of the 

Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers; and tributary streams to Suisun Marsh including Suisun 

Creek, Green Valley Creek, and an unnamed tributary to Cordelia Slough (commonly referred to 

as Red Top Creek), exclusive of the Sacramento–San Joaquin River Basin of the California 

Central Valley. Two artificial propagation programs are considered part of the DPS: the Don 

Clausen Fish Hatchery and the Kingfisher Flat Hatchery/Scott Creek (Monterey Bay Salmon and 

Trout Project). 

Information on abundance and productivity trends for the naturally spawning component of the 

CCC steelhead DPS is extremely limited. There are no time series of population abundance for 

the naturally spawned adult component of the DPS; however, estimates of steelhead statewide 

show a reduction in number from 603,000 in the early 1960s to 240,000–275,000 in the 1980s, 

indicating a potential decline of at least 54 percent. Within the CCC steelhead DPS, estimates of 

run sizes in the largest river system, the Russian River, have gone from 65,000 in the 1960s to 

1,750–7,000 in the 1990s, indicating a potential decline of at least 89 percent. Abundance in 

smaller streams within the DPS was assessed as stable but at low levels. 

Short time series of juvenile abundance exist for a number of sites within the CCC steelhead 

DPS. An analysis of these data indicated a downward trend in fish populations at five locations 

where adequate information was available: San Lorenzo River, Scott Creek, Waddell Creek, 

Gazos Creek, and Redwood Creek in Marin County. Although an overall reduction in juvenile 

abundance is implied by this analysis, it is unclear how such a reduction ultimately affects 

numbers of returning adults. 

In lieu of abundance data, information on available habitat can provide insight about population 

status. Although small populations of steelhead occur in watersheds throughout the DPS, 

impassible dams have cut off substantial portions of habitat in some basins, generating concern 

about the spatial structure of the naturally spawning component of the DPS. In the San 

Photo credit: Josh Fuller, NMFS, Russian River. California. 

96
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

Francisco Estuary, for example, approximately 58 percent of historically occupied streams no 

longer support anadromy. For the DPS as a whole, 22 percent of historical habitat is estimated to 

be behind recent (usually man-made) barriers. 

The two artificial propagation programs that are part of the CCC steelhead DPS are thought to 

decrease risk of extinction to some degree by contributing to increased abundance. Additionally, 

changes to regulations concerning sport fishing likely reduce the extinction risk for the DPS. 

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: The following limiting factors, and their level of threat to this DPS, were 

evaluated during the development of the Internal Draft Multi-Species Recovery Plan: 

Degraded Habitat-Estuarine and Nearshore Marine: Moderate Threat 

Degraded Habitat-Floodplain Connectivity and Function: Moderate to High Threat 

Degraded Habitat-Channel Structure and Complexity: Moderate Threat 

Degraded Habitat-Riparian Areas and LWD Recruitment: Moderate Threat 

Degraded Habitat-Stream Substrate: Moderate to High Threat 

Degraded Habitat-Stream Flow: Moderate Threat 

Degraded Habitat-Water Quality: High Threat 

Degraded Habitat-Fish Passage: High Threat 

Hatchery-related Adverse Effects: Low Threat 

Harvest-related Adverse Effects: Moderate to High Threat 

Predation/Competition/Disease: High Threat 

Critical sources of threats to this DPS include: (1) lack of oversight on county grading activities 

that may affect steelhead; (2) changes to channel morphology and reduced floodplain 

connectivity due to levee construction, flood control structures, roads, erosion control structures, 

and urbanization; (3) urbanization and rural development leading to reduced riparian forests, 

pollution, unscreened water diversions, and water demands exceeding availability; (4) incidental 

mortality from catch-and-release hooking; (5) climatic variation leading to drought, flooding, 

and variable ocean conditions; (6) predation; and (7) loss of historical habitats due to dams and 

barriers. 

Conservation Actions: During 2006–2008, key conservation actions included: 

•	 Collaborated proactively with counties on General Plan Updates, Grading Ordinances, 

and Riparian Ordinances. 

•	 Implementing white papers and policies for instream flow, gravel mining, and summer 

dams. 

•	 Encouraging FishNet 4C, a multi-county group, dedicating resources to county 

restoration activities focused on salmon and steelhead restoration. 

•	 Continued participation with PCSRF Grant program. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: Several priority recovery actions are needed for the CCC 

steelhead DPS, including: 

•	 Research and monitor distribution, status, and trends of steelhead. 

97
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

•	 Promote operations of current recovery hatcheries and develop Hatchery and Genetics 

Management Plans to minimize negative influences of hatcheries. 

•	 Facilitate fish passage in Alameda Creek. 

•	 Work in urban environments to educate the public, cities, and counties to work toward 

fish-friendly solutions on water flow and fish passage, and on reducing pollution. 

•	 Improve freshwater habitat quantity and quality. 

•	 Protect and restore habitat complexity and connectivity from the upper watershed to the 

ocean. 

•	 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, develop passive diversion devices or offstream 

storage, eliminate illegal water diversions, and improve criteria for water drafting and 

dam operations. 

•	 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) and screen all water diversion structures. 

•	 Replace existing outdated septic systems and improve wastewater management. 

•	 Identify and treat point and non-point source pollution of streams from wastewater, 

agricultural practices, and urban environments. 

•	 Modify channel and flood control maintenance and eliminate artificial breeching of 

sandbars for improvements in channel and estuarine habitats. 

Recovery Priority: 3 

Ranking for CCC steelhead is based on a high degree of threat, a low-moderate recovery 

potential, and anticipated conflict with development projects or other economic activity. A 

majority of the Biological Review Team that 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. This determination was made based on the 

following factors: (1) the largest run for the DPS (Russian River) has been reduced in size and 

this decline continues, (2) populations in the southern part of the range have declined 

substantially, and (3) habitats are degraded. A low-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. 

98
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

South-Central California Coast Steelhead DPS (Oncorhynchus mykiss) 

Date Listed: August 18, 1997 (62 

FR 43937), reaffirmed January 5, 

2006 (71 FR 834) 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: The 

Recovery Outline was completed in 

September 2007. The Draft 

Recovery Plan is in development 

and is expected to be finalized in 

2010. 

Species Status: The steelhead 

population within the South-Central 

California Steelhead DPS has 

declined dramatically, from estimated annual runs totaling 25,000 adults in the mid-1960s to 

mid-1990s to less than 500 returning adult fish. Of the 36 watersheds historically supporting 

steelhead runs, approximately 90 percent continue to support runs, although run sizes have been 

sharply reduced in most watersheds. The four largest watersheds (Pajaro, Salinas, 

Nacimiento/Arroyo Seco, and Carmel rivers) have experienced declines in run sizes of 90 

percent or more. Present population trends within individual watersheds continuing to support 

runs is generally unknown, but may vary widely between watersheds. 

Threats and Impacts: The South-Central California Steelhead DPS is near the southern limit of 

the steelhead’s range. There has been extensive loss of populations in most of the major 

watersheds due to agricultural development, urbanization, dewatering, and modification of rivers 

and creeks. A significant portion of the spawning and rearing habitat has been rendered 

inaccessible as a result of dams and other instream structures that block or impede migration. 

The principal threats to the viability of the South-Central California Steelhead DPS are 

associated with the four major river systems listed above. Each of these watersheds is heavily 

impacted by water facilities (both surface and subsurface) and development of the floodplain and 

associated riparian corridor (for agricultural, residential, and industrial uses including sand and 

gravel extraction). Additionally, threats to several of the major watersheds in the southern 

portion of the DPS (Santa Rosa, San Simeon, San Luis Obispo, and Arroyo Grande creeks) 

impact the viability of this DPS. 

In many of the watersheds, water developments have physically blocked access or impeded 

migration of adult steelhead to headwater spawning and rearing tributaries, as well as restricted 

the emigration of juveniles to the ocean. Development of the floodplains have altered the natural 

fluvial processes that facilitate migration and in some cases sustain over-summering habitat for 

juvenile steelhead; associated flood control structures and activities have further disrupted the 

natural fluvial processes necessary to maintain these habitats. Limited harvesting of timber and 

South-Central California Steelhead, San Carpoforo Creek – 2007 

99
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

increased development of residential structures (and associated roads) on steep-sided erosive 

slopes have accelerated erosion and sedimentation of river and stream channels. The continued 

spread and propagation of invasive plants and aquatic species also has 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 has reduced the suitability of these habitats for rearing and acclimation. Finally, the 

introduction of exotic fish and the stocking of non-native steelhead fish stocks to support 

recreational fishing have also contributed to the decline of native steelhead and related resident 

trout populations in many coastal rivers and streams, though the 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. A number of impediments to fish passage caused by road crossings and other instream 

structures have been eliminated or substantially improved as a result of retrofitting such 

structures. Funding for these projects was provided through PCSRF. Planning for the removal 

of San Clemente Dam in the Carmel River has advanced and is expected to be completed by 

2009. Funding for this project has been provided by the California American Water Agency, 

California Department of Water Resources, and California Coastal Conservancy. 

Angling regulations for sport fishing for native steelhead have been changed to regulate 

recreational angling in virtually all coastal rivers and streams in this DPS that are accessible to 

adult steelhead migrating up from the ocean. This recreational fishery is limited to several days 

a week during the migratory season and is limited to catch-and-release. Additionally, the CDFG 

has curtailed its stocking of hatchery-reared trout, limiting stockings to reservoirs or stream 

reaches above impassible barriers. 

Finally, NMFS has conducted both formal and informal Section 7 Consultations with federal 

agencies throughout the range of this DPS that fund, carry out, or regulate projects such as flood 

protection, road construction, water diversion, and gravel mining. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

•	 Further investigate life-history of the species, including utilization of estuarine habitat, 

juvenile growth and smolting patterns, distribution of residualized populations above 

artificial impassable barriers, and the relationship between putative resident and 

migratory forms of steelhead to refine population viability and delisting criteria for this 

species. 

•	 Re-establish access to upper watersheds in both small coastal streams and several of the 

larger river systems. 

•	 Complete planning for the removal of San Clemente Dam on the Carmel River. 

•	 Re-establish adequate flow regimes for the Salinas and Nacimiento rivers. 

•	 Further investigate potential recovery actions south of San Simeon. 

•	 Establish a robust monitoring system to track population trends, the efficacy of recovery 

actions, and the attainment of viability and delisting criteria. 

100
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

Recovery Priority Number: 3 

Ranking is based on a moderate magnitude of threat, a high potential for recovery, and 

anticipated conflict with current and future development/disturbance within the range of the 

DPS. The BRT that was formed to conduct an updated status review in 2005 concluded that the 

South-Central California Steelhead DPS was “currently not in danger of extinction but likely to 

become so in the foreseeable future.” This determination was based in part on “dewatering from 

irrigation and urban water diversions and habitat degradation in the form of logging on steep 

erosive slopes, agricultural and urban development on floodplains and riparian areas, and 

artificial breaching of estuaries during periods when they are normally closed off to the ocean by 

a sandbar.” NMFS believes 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. 

101
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

Southern California Coast Steelhead DPS (Oncorhynchus mykiss) 

Date Listed: August 18, 1997 (62 

FR 43937); and Southern Range 

Extension May 1, 2002 (50 CFR Part 

224) reaffirmed January 5, 2006 (71 

FR 834) 

Legal Status: Endangered 

Recovery Plan Status: The 

Recovery Outline was completed in 

September 2007. The Draft 

Recovery Plan is under review and is 

expected to be finalized in 2009. 

Species Status: The steelhead 

populations within the Southern 

California Steelhead DPS have 

declined dramatically, from estimated annual runs totaling 55,000 adults in the mid-1960s to 

mid-1990s (estimated from only four of the northernmost watersheds) to less than 500 returning 

adult fish. Populations from over half of the 46 watersheds historically supporting steelhead runs 

are believed to have been extirpated. All of the four largest watersheds in the northern portion of 

the DPS (Santa Maria, Santa Ynez, Ventura, and Santa Clara rivers) have experienced declines 

in run sizes of 90 percent or more. In the southern range extension (from Malibu to the Mexico 

border), adult steelhead have been documented in only three watersheds since the original listing 

of the DPS, although no systematic monitoring of steelhead runs has been conducted within 

these watersheds. 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 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 all four of the major river systems in the northern portion of the DPS 

(listed above). Each of these watersheds is heavily impacted by water facilities (both surface and 

subsurface) and development of the floodplain and associated riparian corridor (for agricultural, 

residential, and industrial uses including sand and gravel extraction). There has been extensive 

loss of populations, especially south of Malibu Creek, due to urbanization, dewatering, and 

channelization of rivers and creeks. Threats to several of the major watersheds in the southern 

portion of the DPS (San Gabriel, Santa Ana, San Juan, Santa Margarita, San Luis Rey, and 

Sweetwater rivers) may also 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 that 

block or impede migration of adult steelhead to headwater spawning and rearing tributaries, and 

that restrict the emigration of juveniles to the ocean. Development of the floodplains have 

Southern California Steelhead – Mission Creek 2008 

102
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

altered the natural fluvial processes that facilitate migration and in some cases sustain oversummering 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 

accelerated erosion and sedimentation of river and stream channels and of remaining estuarine 

habitat. 

The continued spread and propagation of invasive plants and aquatic species also has further 

degraded habitats for steelhead, particularly rearing juveniles. Southern California has also lost 

approximately 90 percent of its pre-historic estuarine habitat through dredging and filling. The 

degradation of remaining estuarine habitat as a result of both point and non-point sources of 

pollution and artificial breaching of sand bars has reduced the suitability of these habitats for 

rearing and acclimation. Finally, the introduction of exotic fish, and the stocking of non-native 

steelhead fish stocks to support recreational fishing have also contributed to the decline of native 

steelhead and related resident trout populations in many coastal rivers and streams, although the 

latter practice has declined since the listing of the species. 

Conservation Actions: Inventories of impediments have been conducted on major watersheds 

(Santa Maria/Sisquoc, Santa Ynez, Santa Ynez Mountains complex, Ventura, Santa Clara, and 

Santa Monica Mountains complex, San Juan/Arroyo, San Luis Rey). Fish passage facilities have 

been constructed on Sal Salsipuedes Creek (Santa Ynez River); San Ysidro Creek (Santa Ynez 

Mountains) and a number of smaller watersheds along the Conception Coast; Ventura River at 

the Robles Diversion Dam; Santa Paula Creek at the Harvey Dam; and Santa Paula Creek Flood 

Control Channel. Additional fish passage projects are in the planning stages within the Santa 

Monica Mountains and the southern range extension (e.g., San Juan/Arroyo Trabuco). Funding 

for these projects was provided by the California Coastal Conservancy, California Wildlife 

Conservation Board, and Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery 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 retrofitting such structures (i.e., Horse Creek on the Sisquoc 

River). Funding for these projects was provided by through PCSRF 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. 

Angling regulations for sport fishing for native steelhead have been changed to eliminate 

recreational angling in virtually all coastal rivers and streams in the DPS that are accessible to 

adult steelhead migrating up from the ocean. Additionally, the CDFG has curtailed its stocking 

of hatchery-reared trout, limiting stockings to reservoirs or stream reaches above impassible 

barriers. In at least one case the Department has begun stocking sterile (triploid) fish to prevent 

the interbreeding of hatchery-reared fish with native steelhead. 

NMFS has issued two Biological Opinions regarding fish passage and migration flows: for 

Santa Felicia Dam on Piru Creek (a tributary to the Santa Clara River) and for the Vern Freeman 

Diversion on the Santa Clara River. Additionally, NMFS has participated in the Public 

103
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

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 DPS that fund, carry out, or regulate projects such as flood protection, 

road construction, water diversion, bridge replacements, and gravel mining operations. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: The following actions are necessary to recover the 

endangered steelhead of Southern California: 

•	 Investigate life-history of the species, including utilization of estuarine habitat, juvenile 

growth and smolting patterns, distribution of residualized populations above artificial 

impassable barriers, and the relationship between putative resident and migratory forms 

of steelhead to refine population viability and delisting criteria for this species. 

•	 Re-establish access to upper watersheds in both small coastal streams and several of the 

larger river systems within each biogeographic region identified by the TRT. 

•	 Complete planning for the removal of Matilija Dam on the Ventura River and Rindge 

Dam on Malibu Creek. 

•	 Re-establish adequate flow regimes (and in some instances fish passage facilities) for the 

Santa Maria, Santa Ynez, Ventura, and Santa Clara rivers. 

•	 Further investigate potential recovery actions south of Malibu Creek (within the southern 

range extension), including watershed barrier inventories, habitat suitability assessments, 

and metapopulation dynamics between the larger river systems and short run coastal 

streams. 

•	 Establish a robust monitoring system to track population trends, the efficacy of recovery 

actions, and the attainment of viability and delisting criteria. 

Recovery Priority Number: 3 

Ranking is based on a high magnitude of threat, a moderate potential for recovery, and 

anticipated conflict with current and future development/disturbance within the range of the 

DPS. The BRT that was formed to conduct an updated status review in 2005 reiterated the 

conclusions reached in the previous status review: that the Southern California Steelhead DPS 

“was in danger of extinction.” This determination was based in part on the extirpation of 

populations through much of their historical range, and the blockage and degradation of 

freshwater habitats. NMFS believes 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. 

104
 
 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

Central California Coast Coho Salmon ESU (Oncorhynchus kisutch) 

Date Listed: October 31, 1996 (61 FR 

56138) relisted June 28, 2005 (70 FR 

37160) 

Legal Status: Endangered (reclassified 

from original threatened listing) 

Recovery Plan Status: Recovery 

Outline completed in October 2005. The 

Draft recovery plan is being revised for 

public release in April 2009. The final 

plan is scheduled for a late 2009 or early 

2010 release. 

Species Status: Near Extinction 

The Central California Coast coho 

salmon ESU includes all naturally spawned populations from Punta Gorda in northern California 

to the south (including the San Lorenzo River in central California), as well as populations in 

tributaries to San Francisco Bay (excluding the Sacramento–San Joaquin River system). Four 

artificial propagation programs are considered part of this ESU: the Don Clausen/Warm Springs 

Fish Hatchery Captive Broodstock Program, Scott Creek/King Fisher Flats Conservation 

Program, Scott Creek Captive Broodstock Program, and the Noyo River Fish Station Egg-take 

Program coho hatchery program. The artificially propagated stocks were found to be no more 

than moderately divergent genetically from the natural populations. 

All population data and information indicate that the CCC coho salmon ESU is critically 

close to extinction. Only a few hundred adults have returned annually over the last several 

years. CCC coho salmon are extirpated in all but a few watersheds south of the Navarro River. 

Poor freshwater survival and poor ocean conditions/ocean survival are acting on the population 

in synchrony to result in the population collapse. “Near final data from across the range of coho 

salmon on the coast of California reveal there was a 72% decline in returning adults in 2007/08 

compared to the same cohort in 2004/05.” 

Information on the abundance and productivity trends for the naturally spawning component of 

the CCC coho ESU is extremely limited. No long-term time series of spawner abundance exist 

for individual river systems. Data are particularly lacking for many river basins in the southern 

two-thirds of the ESU, where naturally spawning populations are considered to be at the greatest 

risk. Analyses of juvenile coho 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. Trend data for this ESU show a 

continuing decline in abundance and a population that is going extinct. 

Juvenile CCC coho salmon. 

Photo courtesy Southwest Fisheries Science Center, Scott Creek, California 

105
 
 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

Threats and Impacts: The following limiting factors, and their level of threat to this ESU, were 

evaluated during the development of the draft Recovery Plan: 

Degraded Habitat-Estuarine and Nearshore Marine: High Threat 

Degraded Habitat-Floodplain Connectivity and Function: High Threat 

Degraded Habitat-Channel Structure and Complexity: Moderate Threat 

Degraded Habitat-Riparian Areas and LWD Recruitment: High Threat 

Degraded Habitat-Stream Substrate: Moderate to High Threat 

Degraded Habitat-Stream Flow: Moderate Threat 

Degraded Habitat-Water Quality: Moderate to High Threat 

Degraded Habitat-Fish Passage: Moderate to High Threat 

Hatchery-related Adverse Effects: Low Threat 

Harvest-related Adverse Effects: High Threat 

Predation/Competition/ Disease: High Threat 

The last remaining CCC coho salmon persist predominately on non-federal forestlands except for 

Lagunitas Creek. California is currently undergoing revisions to their Forest Practice Rules with 

the intent to protect watersheds with anadromous salmonids. Final Rules are anticipated to be 

adopted by the Governor-appointed Board of Forestry in 2009. 

Other critical sources of threats to this DPS include: (1) lack of oversight on county grading 

activities that may affect CCC coho salmon; (2) water use, riparian forest removal, erosion, road 

building, and other practices associated with agricultural operations; (3) changes to channel 

morphology and reduced floodplain connectivity due to levee construction, flood control 

structures, roads, erosion control structures, and urbanization; (4) urbanization and rural 

development leading to reduced riparian forests, pollution, unscreened water diversions, and 

water demands exceeding availability; (5) potential genetic modification in hatchery stocks 

resulting from domestication selection; (6) incidental mortality from catch-and-release hooking; 

(7) climatic variation leading to drought, flooding, and variable ocean conditions; and (8) 

predation. 

Conservation Actions: During 2006–2008, key conservation actions included: 

•	 Worked with California Board of Forestry as they proposed new rules for the protection 

of salmonids and their habitats. 

•	 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 for instream flow, gravel mining, and summer 

dams. 

•	 Encouraging 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. 

106
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

•	 Continued participation with Pacific Coast Salmonid Restoration Grant program. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: The first priority is to act immediately to prevent the 

extinction of CCC coho salmon from California’s central coast. This would include: 

1.	 Protect all existing populations and work to ensure survival of last remaining individuals 

and their offspring. 

2.	 Conduct focused and careful restoration work in areas known to support last remaining 

populations to increase survival. 

3.	 Consider expanding captive broodstock programs to preserve the remaining genetic 

diversity. 

4.	 Conduct immediate outreach to inform the public, anglers, agencies, etc. of the current 

state of this population. 

Other Needs: 

•	 Research and monitor distribution, status, and trends of coho salmon. 

•	 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, 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) and 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 CCC coho salmon was based on a high degree of threat, a high recovery potential, 

and an anticipated conflict with economic activity. The BRT agreed in 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 percent of coho streams no longer have spawning runs), (2) long-term 

trends clearly downward, (3) degraded habitats, (4) threats to genetic integrity due to hatchery 

plantings, and (5) recent droughts and change in ocean productivity. NMFS believes that a high 

107
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

potential for recovery is possible for CCC coho salmon because of the likelihood that freshwater 

impacts can be substantially controlled or reduced through habitat protection, implementation of 

best management practices, and focused restoration. Over 80 percent of the range of CCC coho 

lies under private ownership. Forestry is the predominant land use; however, high levels of 

forest conversion to agriculture and urbanization are currently underway. Imminent land use 

changes are anticipated to conflict with the conservation needs of CCC coho salmon. 

108
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

California Coastal Chinook Salmon ESU (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) 

Date Listed: September 16, 1999 

(64 FR 50394) and reaffirmed 

June 28, 2005 (70 FR 37160) 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: 

The Recovery Outline was 

completed and signed July 16, 2007. 

A Multi-Species (NC steelhead, CC 

Chinook, CCC steelhead) Recovery 

Plan is expected to be finalized in 

2010. 

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. 

The status of CC Chinook salmon is critically nearing extinction with continued declining 

returns of adult spawners. The ocean commercial and recreational fishery has been closed. 

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 whether these hatcheries are a benefit or 

detriment to the naturally spawning portion of the ESU. 

Photo credit: Cathy Meyers, Eel River, California. 

109
 
 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

Threats and Impacts: The following limiting factors, and their level of threat to this ESU, were 

evaluated during the development of the Multi-Species draft Recovery Plan: 

Degraded Habitat-Estuarine and Nearshore Marine: High Threat 

Degraded Habitat-Floodplain Connectivity and Function: High Threat 

Degraded Habitat-Channel Structure and Complexity: Moderate Threat 

Degraded Habitat-Riparian Areas and LWD 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: High Threat 

Chinook populations overlay with large tracts of non-federal forestlands. California is currently 

undergoing revisions to their Forest Practice Rules with the intent to protect watersheds with 

anadromous salmonids. Final Rules are anticipated to be adopted by the Governor-appointed 

Board of Forestry in 2009. 

Other critical sources of threats to this ESU include: (1) lack of oversight on county grading 

activities that may affect salmon; (2) water use, riparian forest removal, erosion, road building, 

and other practices associated with agricultural operations; (3) changes to channel morphology 

and reduced floodplain connectivity due to levee construction, flood control structures, roads, 

erosion control structures, and urbanization; (4) urbanization and rural development leading to 

reduced riparian forests, pollution, unscreened water diversions, and water demands exceeding 

availability; (5) potential genetic modification in hatchery stocks resulting from domestication 

selection; (6) incidental mortality from catch-and-release hooking; (7) climatic variation leading 

to drought, flooding, and variable ocean conditions; and (8) predation. 

Conservation Actions: During 2006–2008, key conservation actions included: 

•	 Worked with California Board of Forestry as they proposed new rules to protect 

salmonids and their habitats. 

•	 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 for instream flow, gravel mining, and summer 

dams. 

•	 Encouraging 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. 

110
 
 

 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: Several priority recovery actions are needed for the 

California Coast Chinook Salmon ESU, including the following: 

•	 Focus restoration on increasing survival of Chinook salmon in currently occupied 

watersheds. 

•	 Conduct focused freshwater habitat restoration in salmon streams (e.g., erosion control, 

bank stabilization, riparian protection and restoration, and reintroduction of large woody 

debris). 

•	 Research and monitor distribution, status, and trends of Chinook salmon. 

•	 Improve estuarine habitat quantity and quality. 

•	 Balance water supply and allocation with fisheries needs through a water rights program, 

designate fully appropriated watersheds, develop passive diversion devices or offstream 

storage, eliminate illegal water diversions, and improve criteria for water drafting and 

dam operations. 

•	 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) and 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 

Ranking is based on a high degree of threat, a low-moderate recovery potential, and anticipated 

conflict with development projects or other economic activity. The high degree of threat is based 

on: (1) evidence that suggests populations have been extirpated in the southern part of the ESU, 

or are extremely low in abundance, and (2) loss of the 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. 

111
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

Sacramento River Winter-run Chinook Salmon ESU (Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha) 

Date Listed: November 5, 1990 (55 

FR 46515); reclassified January 4, 

1994 (59 FR 440); classification 

reaffirmed June 28, 2005 (70 FR 

37160) 

Legal Status: Endangered 

(reclassified from original threatened 

listing) 

Recovery Plan Status: 

A draft recovery plan was issued in 

August 1997. A multi-species 

recovery plan that includes updated 

information for this ESU is under 

development. A public review draft is expected to be completed in June 2009, and a final 

recovery plan is expected in November 2009. 

Species Status: The distribution of winter-run spawning and rearing historically was limited to 

the upper Sacramento River and its tributaries, where spring-fed streams provided cold water 

throughout the summer, allowing for spawning, egg incubation, and rearing during the midsummer period. The construction of Shasta Dam in 1943 blocked access to all of these waters. 

Approximately 299 miles of tributary spawning habitat in the upper Sacramento River is now 

inaccessible to winter-run. 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. 

Winter-run population estimates were as high as 100,000 fish in the 1960s, but declined to under 

200 fish in the 1990s. In recent years, population estimates of winter-run reached a 25-year high 

of 17,334 in 2006, followed by a precipitous decline in 2007 and 2008 with estimates of 2,775 

and 2,186 fish returning to spawn. 

An artificial propagation program also is part of the Sacramento River winter-run Chinook ESU. 

The program is carried out at the Livingston-Stone National Fish Hatchery on the mainstem 

Sacramento River above Keswick Dam. An assessment of the effects of these artificial 

propagation programs on the viability of the ESU 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 structure. 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. 

Emerging larval Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon and pre-emergent eggs 

in the upper Sacramento River near Redding. 

112
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

Due to concerns of genetic introgression with hatchery populations, and because winter-run 

Chinook has only one spawning population, NMFS believes that the winter-run ESU is currently 

not viable. 

Threats and Impacts: The greatest single impact to this population was the blocking of access 

to spawning areas by the Shasta and Keswick dams. The ESU continues to be threatened by 

having all of its historic spawning habitat blocked by dams, having only one extant population, a 

low and declining population size (compared to historic levels), vulnerability to drought, 

inadequately screened or unscreened water diversions, poor juvenile outmigrant survival 

throughout all of its in-river range pollution, adverse flow conditions, high summer water 

temperatures, and high rates of ocean harvest. The degraded and declining ecological condition 

of the Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta also is one of the most highly ranked threats to this 

ESU. The Delta has been substantially modified from its historic condition, and large water 

withdrawals, water quality problems, habitat degradation and loss, and introduced predatory fish 

species severely affect juvenile salmon growth and survival. 

Conservation Actions: 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 

winter-run Chinook under the 

California Endangered Species 

Act, and has thus established 

specific in-river 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). In response 

to a fishery failure triggered in part by a weak ocean upwelling in 2005, harvest protective 

measures were implemented in 2008 and may continue into 2009. Based on the 

recommendations of the Pacific Fishery Management Council, NMFS closed ocean commercial 

fisheries that incidentally harvest Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon. In addition, the 

California Fish and Game Commission closed in-river fisheries in the Central Valley, with the 

exception of a short season that targeting late fall-run Chinook salmon. These closures are 

expected to have increased the ocean survival and in-river escapement of the ESU. In addition, 

the CDFG has continued to implement enhanced enforcement efforts in spring-run tributaries 

and adult holding areas, which have significantly reduced illegal harvest. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: Several priority recovery actions are needed for the 

winter-run Chinook salmon ESU, including the following: 

Adult Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon being studied at the Red Bluff Diversion Dam. 

113
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

•	 Primarily, establish an additional population or populations within the ESU. 

•	 The Battle Creek Restoration Project is a priority action that is expected to add 42 miles 

of spawning habitat for this ESU. Battle Creek will be 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 water rights 

to fish. Passage to habitats upstream of Shasta and Keswick dams are also considered to 

be critical for improving the viability of this species. 

•	 Restoring the ecological health of the Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta and lower 

Sacramento River through significant changes in water and levee management, and 

reducing the abundance of non-native predatory fish are other important recovery actions. 

•	 Evaluating and implementing alternatives to conveyance of water south of the Delta that 

minimize/eliminate fish entrainment at existing facilities while allowing the Delta to 

function as a restored estuary. 

•	 Continued funding and implementation of CALFED’s Ecosystem Restoration Program 

and the CVPIA’s AFRP (see Box 6 on page 93) 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. 

•	 Reduced commercial harvest may also be necessary to increase the abundance of this 

species. We estimate that up to 30 percent of the adult ocean population is harvested 

annually. 

Recovery Priority Number: 3 

The recovery priority number for the Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon ESU is 

based on a high magnitude of threat due to a single extant population vulnerable to loss of 

genetic diversity, low abundance, unscreened diversions, high water temperatures, and effects of 

drought. The recovery potential is low to moderate due to the lack of additional populations, 

lack of available/suitable habitat (cold water), unscreened diversions/passage problems, and 

inadequate instream flow. Conflict was determined to be present due to anticipated future 

development, habitat degradation issues, and increasing demands for Central Valley water 

supplies. 

114
 
 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

Central Valley Spring-run Chinook Salmon ESU (Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha) 

Date Listed: September 16, 

1999 (64 FR 50394), 

classification reaffirmed 

June 28, 2005 (70 FR 37160) 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: A 

multi-species recovery plan that 

includes updated information for 

this ESU is under development. 

A public review draft is 

expected to be completed in 

June 2009, and a final recovery 

plan is expected in November 2009. 

Species Status: Twenty-six historical populations have been identified within the spring-run 

ESU—19 independent populations, and 7 dependent populations. Of the 19 independent 

populations of spring-run that occurred historically, only three remain, in Deer, Mill, and Butte 

creeks. Dependent populations of spring-run continue to occur in Big Chico, Antelope, Clear, 

Thomes, and Beegum creeks, but rely on the three extant independent populations for their 

continued survival. A population also occurs in the Feather River but is dependent on Feather 

River Hatchery (FRH) production (which is considered part of the ESU) but has hybridized with 

fall-run Chinook. 

The remaining independent populations reached low abundance levels during the late 1980s (67– 

243 spawners compared to a historic peak of about 700,000 spawners). Independent populations 

displayed a trend of increasing or stable abundance since the late 1990s, with highs of 22,932 

adult fish in 1998 and 14,051 fish in 2006; but have declined recently to 6,507 adults in 2007 and 

6,450 adults in 2008, with most of these fish occurring in Butte Creek. The abundance of the 

Deer Creek and Mill Creek populations have decreased in recent years to less than a few hundred 

fish in each watershed. This increases the potential for depensation, which occurs when 

populations are reduced to very low densities and per capita growth rates decrease as a result of a 

variety of mechanisms, including failure to find mates and reproduce. 

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 rearing and migration habitat in the Sacramento River and the Sacramento–San 

Joaquin River Delta, 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 

Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon at the Quartz Bowl Pool on Butte Creek. 

115
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

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. 

The degraded and declining ecological condition of the Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta 

also is one of the most highly ranked threats to this ESU. The Delta has been substantially 

modified from its historic condition, and large water withdrawals, water quality problems, 

habitat degradation and loss, and introduced predatory fish species severely affect juvenile 

salmon growth and survival. 

Conservation Actions: Numerous conservation actions were conducted from 2006–2008 for 

the Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon ESU. 

The AFRP (See Box 6 on page 93) funded a state-of-the-art fish ladder on Antelope Creek, a 

small spring-run watershed with high restoration potential. The AFRP, in cooperation with 

NMFS and the CDFG, is working with landowners on Antelope Creek to restore flows and 

habitat below agricultural diversions to increase the upstream and downstream survival of 

migrating spring-run. 

Box 7. Litigation Settlement 

NMFS has worked closely with the Pacific Gas and Electric An October 2006 settlement 

Company to manage flows in Butte Creek to maximize the agreement resolved long-standing 

litigation related to Friant Dam and abundance of spring-run in this stream. Beginning in 2006, flows in the San Joaquin River. The Pacific Gas and Electric voluntarily increased minimum agreement calls for the restoration of

instream flows during the spawning and incubation period approximately 150 miles of habitat to 

by as much as 80 percent to increase the amount of habitat re-establish a self-sustaining 

population of spring-run Chinook available to spawning fish. In Clear Creek, restoration salmon. Federal legislation to projects and improved water management have contributed implement this agreement is under 

to the steady increase of the Clear Creek population. Clear consideration by Congress. 

Creek populations from 2006 to 2008 were at the highest 

levels ever recorded with 199 and 201 adults returning in 2007 and 2008, respectively, compared 

to an average of 47 fish between 1992 and 2006. This is promising evidence that this stream 

may eventually support a viable, independent population. 

In 2007, NMFS took a successful cooperative approach to ensuring access to fish habitat past 

hydropower dams on the Feather River in California. Through the Feather River Habitat 

Expansion Agreement, NMFS creatively worked with energy companies, conservation groups, 

other federal agencies, and state resource agencies to develop a consensus approach to providing 

both migratory fish passage and energy generation. The Agreement will provide ESA listed 

Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon and Central Valley steelhead more habitat for 

spawning, rearing, and other critical life stages. The Agreement was created to collectively 

resolve blockages to migratory fish passage at the Oroville, Poe, Upper North Fork Feather 

River, and Rock Creek-Cresta hydropower dams. 

In response to a fishery failure triggered in part by a weak ocean upwelling in 2005, harvest 

protective measures were implemented in 2008 and may continue into 2009. Based on the 

116
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

recommendations of the Pacific Fishery Management Council, NMFS closed ocean commercial 

fisheries that incidentally harvest Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon. In addition, the 

California Fish and Game Commission closed in-river fisheries in the Central Valley, with the 

exception of a short season that targets late fall-run Chinook salmon. These closures are 

expected to have increased the ocean survival and in-river escapement of the ESU. In addition, 

the CDFG has continued to implement enhanced enforcement efforts in spring-run tributaries 

and adult holding areas, which have significantly reduced illegal harvest. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: Several priority recovery actions are needed for the 

winter-run Chinook salmon ESU, including the following: 

•	 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. 

•	 Continue to support CALFED’s Battle Creek Restoration Project, which has already 

restored stream reaches in the 42 miles of Upper Battle Creek suitable for spring-run 

Chinook salmon (as mentioned in the spring-run Chinook summary). 

•	 Continue funding and implementing CALFED’s Ecosystem Restoration Program and the 

CVPIA 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. 

•	 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. Implement the Feather 

River Oroville Hydroelectric Facility’s Fish Habitat Management Plan to reduce the 

interaction between hatchery and wild fish and between spring-run Chinook salmon and 

fall-run Chinook salmon in the Feather River. 

•	 Implement the Feather River Habitat Expansion Agreement to increase the abundance 

and range of spring-run Chinook salmon. Other fish passage actions that expand the 

range of spring-run Chinook salmon into currently inaccessible historic habitats, and 

particularly past Englebright Dam on the Yuba River, have been identified as a priority 

action in the draft Central Valley recovery plan. The upper Yuba River contains several 

hundred miles of habitat that may be suitable for reintroduction of the species. 

•	 Restore the ecological health of the Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta and lower 

Sacramento River through significant changes in water and levee management, and 

reduce the abundance of non-native predatory fish. 

•	 Evaluate and implement alternatives to conveyance of water south of the Delta that 

minimize/eliminate fish entrainment at existing facilities while allowing the Delta to 

function as a restored estuary. 

117
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

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. 

118
 
 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

ATLANTIC SALMON RECOVERY 

Atlantic Salmon – Gulf of Maine DPS (Salmo salar) 

Date Listed: November 17, 2000, listed 

jointly by NMFS and FWS (collectively, 

the Services).11 

Legal Status: Endangered 

Recovery Plan Status: The Final 

Recovery Plan for the Gulf of Maine 

(GOM) DPS of Atlantic Salmon was 

published November 2005 by the Services. 

The Recovery Plan was prepared jointly 

by the Services and the Maine Atlantic 

Salmon Commission.12 The recovery plan 

built on and expanded recovery actions 

identified in Maine’s Atlantic Salmon Conservation Plan for Seven Maine Rivers and the 

recommendations of the 2004 National Research Council report on Atlantic Salmon in Maine. 

Concurrent with implementing the priority recovery actions, over the past 2 years the Services, 

the State of Maine, and the Penobscot Indian Nation have been developing a new framework to 

guide Atlantic salmon recovery based upon the availability of new information since 2006— 

specifically, the recommendation of the 2006 Status Review Report that the GOM DPS should 

include the three largest river systems in Maine. 

Species Status: The GOM DPS is comprised of all anadromous Atlantic salmon whose 

freshwater range occurs in the watersheds from the Androscoggin northward along the Maine 

coast to the Dennys, including all associated conservation hatchery populations used to 

supplement natural populations; currently, such populations are maintained at Green Lake and 

Craig Brook National Fish Hatcheries. Excluded are those fish raised in commercial hatcheries 

for aquaculture. The GOM DPS of Atlantic salmon is at very low levels. Adult returns, juvenile 

abundance estimates, and survival have not significantly increased since the DPS was listed. 

Data on adult returns and nest counts collected from the Narraguagus, Pleasant, and Dennys 

rivers have been used to estimate returns to core populations within the GOM DPS. In 2007, 53 

adult fish were estimated to return to the GOM DPS (returns to the proposed expanded GOM 

DPS for 2007 were Androscoggin (19), Kennebec (16), and Penobscot (916)). 

Threats and Impacts: As part of the recovery planning process, the Services assembled a team 

of technical experts from the Maine Bureau of Sea Run Fisheries and Habitat (BSRFH) and the 

Services to conduct a structured threats analysis. In the threats assessment, the technical experts 

11 Based upon information contained in the 2006 Atlantic Salmon Status Review Report, on September 3, 2008, the Services proposed to include 

additional larger rivers in the GOM DPS and list this expanded DPS as endangered under the ESA. The final listing rule is expected be 

completed by summer 2009.

12 Due to the reorganization of state agencies in Maine, salmon management is now housed in the BSRFH in the Department of Marine 

Resources. 

119
 
 

 

 

 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

evaluated the geographic extent and life stages of Atlantic salmon affected by the threats and 

their severity. As a result, they developed a list of specific threats and identified high-priority 

actions necessary to reverse the decline of Atlantic salmon populations in the GOM DPS. While 

the list generated from the threats assessment is valid, it no longer represents the most up-to-date 

analysis of stressors acting on the GOM DPS. Survival in the marine environment has since 

been determined to be one of the most significant threats to Atlantic salmon. While the threats 

assessment touched upon marine survival in relation to climate change, it was not explicitly 

identified.13 

Conservation Actions: During 2006–2008, NMFS—in cooperation with the Maine BSRFH, 

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 activities14 implemented during 2006– 

2008 included the following: 

•	 Completed Recovery Team Implementation Action Plan that identified the top-priority 

recovery actions from the original recovery action list in the Plan and completed the 

Atlantic Salmon Status Review Report in 2006. 

•	 On September 2 and 5, 2008, respectively, the Services published a proposed rule to 

expand and list the GOM DPS as endangered and designate critical habitat. 

•	 Worked with the aquaculture industry to implement permit requirements protective of the 

DPS, including containment measures for aquaculture facilities and fish marking 

strategies to identify escaped farmed salmon. 

•	 Participated in international management of Atlantic salmon through the North Atlantic 

Salmon Conservation Organization (NASCO) and hosted the 2007 NASCO Annual 

Meeting. Participation in NASCO has led to the development of multi-year regulatory 

measures for high seas Atlantic salmon fisheries, international guidelines for salmon 

stocking and mitigation of threats from aquaculture practices, and country-specific 

Action Plans that outline the implementation of all the NASCO guidelines. 

•	 Conducted annual sampling of the Atlantic salmon fishery in West Greenland to support 

international Atlantic salmon stock assessments and to determine salmon continent of 

origin. Also collaborated with Canada and France to implement sampling of the salmon 

fishery off St. Pierre et Miquelon and to conduct continent-of-origin analysis on the 

sampled fish. 

•	 In response to recommendations from a Sustainable Ecosystems Institute review, the 

Services and BSRFH are developing a new governance structure for the Maine Atlantic 

salmon program addressing issues such as: (1) the hatchery program should be more fully 

integrated with the recovery program; (2) the agencies should develop a conceptual 

framework for recovery; and (3) this framework should guide all recovery efforts. 

13 The Services’ 2008 proposed listing decision includes a revised analysis of primary and secondary stressors, the primary stressors being poor 

marine survival and dams (i.e., due to passage obstruction and habitat modification as well as inadequate regulatory mechanisms to deal with 

dams). Secondary stressors identified are poor water quality, disease and predation, overutilization in the past, aquaculture, and water 

withdrawals. This revised threats analysis was completed on the expanded GOM DPS, which includes three of the largest river systems in Maine 

that have significant hydro projects. Thus, the results differ from the threats analysis completed on the GOM DPS as it was listed in 2000, which 

only encompassed the small coastal watersheds. 

14 Actions and activities described in this section are not confined strictly to the GOM DPS as it was listed in 2000. Significant activities being 

carried out within the proposed expanded GOM DPS also are included. 

120
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

•	 In anticipation of the restoration potential of the Penobscot River Restoration Project to 

purchase the Veazie, Great Works, and Howland dams, Maine BSRFH, in conjunction 

with Maine Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, has completed a draft strategic management 

plan for diadromous fish in the Penobscot. In March 2008, the Penobscot Interagency 

Technical Committee was formed to develop operational management plans for 

diadromous fish within the basin. In support of the work of the Committee, NMFS has 

begun developing an ecologically based GIS tool to help set goals and to help identify 

and prioritize various restoration efforts for the basin. 

•	 Completed analysis of experimental use of non-lethal harassment of comorants to 

determine effectiveness in increasing smolt outmigration success on the Narraguagus 

River. 

•	 Continued monitoring and assessment of the status of wild salmon populations. 

•	 Continued the Penobscot Bay Postsmolt Trawl Survey. This survey was designed to 

identify and quantify factors affecting nearshore survival of Atlantic salmon. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: The actions needed in the next several years for the Gulf 

of Maine Atlantic salmon DPS fall into several broad categories: 

•	 Increase our understanding of the factors affecting estuarine, coastal, and marine survival. 

•	 Restore ecosystem function in freshwater and estuarine habitat (i.e., dam removal, 

predation, competition, restoration, and water quality/quantity). 

•	 Minimize potential for take in freshwater, estuarine, and marine fisheries. 

•	 Maintain conservation hatchery program and conserve the genetic integrity of the DPS. 

•	 Assess stock status of key life stages. 

•	 Promote salmon recovery through increased public and government awareness. 

•	 Assess effectiveness of recovery actions and revise as appropriate. 

Recovery Priority Number: 1 

This ranking is based on several factors, including a high degree of threat, a high potential for 

recovery, and the presence of conflict. The degree of threat is considered high due to continued 

low population numbers and/or threat to Atlantic salmon habitat, and the very low numbers of 

adult Atlantic salmon returns to the DPS. There is a high potential for recovery, and there is 

conflict between salmon recovery and construction or other developmental projects or forms of 

economic activity. 

121
 
 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

NON-SALMONID FISH RECOVERY 

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

Date Listed: April 1, 2003 (68 FR 15674) 

Legal Status: Endangered 

Recovery Plan Status: The Final Smalltooth 

Sawfish Recovery Plan published on January 

21, 2009. 

Species Status: Smalltooth sawfish were 

once prevalent throughout Florida and were 

commonly encountered from Texas to North 

Carolina. Currently, smalltooth sawfish can 

only be found with any regularity in southwest 

Florida between Charlotte Harbor and the Everglades National Park. Based on the contraction in 

range and anecdotal data, it is likely that the population is currently at a level less than 5 percent 

of its size at the time of European settlement. On November 20, 2008, NMFS proposed 

designated critical habitat for the species. The proposed designation will facilitate recruitment of 

juveniles into the population. 

There has never been a substantial directed fishery for smalltooth sawfish. However, smalltooth 

sawfish are endangered because they are caught as bycatch in various commercial fishing gears, 

including gillnet, otter trawl, trammel net, seine, and longlines. Historically, sawfish caught in 

nets or trawls frequently had to be cut free, causing extensive damage to nets, and presenting a 

substantial hazard if brought on board. For these reasons, most smalltooth sawfish caught by 

fishermen were either killed outright or released only after often-lethal removal of their saws. 

Smalltooth sawfish are also taken as bycatch in recreational and commercial hook-and-line 

fisheries. Historically, most of these fish were released alive, but often after lethal removal of 

the saws, presumably for personal use as trophies or sale as curios. Although there is a market 

for smalltooth sawfish saws, the species is not directly targeted in the United States, and any 

captures appear to be incidental. 

The life history characteristics of sawfish have clearly contributed to population depletion and 

are certain to hamper recovery. Sawfish grow slowly, mature late, bear few young, and live long 

lives. These characteristics make sawfish populations extremely vulnerable to threats, 

particularly overfishing, and slow to recover once depleted. Even if all threats were removed, 

recovery is still expected to take 100 years. 

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. Juvenile smalltooth sawfish use red 

Smalltooth sawfish entangled in fishing line 

Photo: © Florida Museum of Natural History
 

122
 
 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

mangroves, shallow water less than 3 feet deep, and euryhaline systems to forage and to avoid 

predation. 

Conservation Actions: Conservation actions supported in 2006–2008 include the following: 

•	 Juvenile satellite and tracking studies in south Florida and juvenile habitat usage studies 

in southwest Florida. 

•	 Studies to identify genetic markers for the species to enforce the Convention on 

International Trade in Endangered Species. 

•	 Monitoring of smalltooth sawfish in the Indian River Lagoon. 

•	 Studies to analyze the population structure, genetic diversity, and natal-site fidelity for 

the species. 

•	 Support for the National Smalltooth Sawfish Encounter Database. 

•	 Satellite tagging study of adult smalltooth sawfish in the shark bottom long-line fishery. 

•	 Education and outreach efforts from Texas to North Carolina. 

•	 A study to characterize mangrove habitats used by juveniles. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: Priority actions needed for recovery of the species include 

the following: 

•	 Increase outreach effort to support the distribution and implementation of the Safe 

Handling and Release Guidelines for smalltooth sawfish for recreational and commercial 

fisheries to minimize interactions, injury, and mortality. 

•	 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. 

•	 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. 

•	 Implement strategies to reduce bycatch, mortality, and injury in specific fisheries to 

ensure the species’ viability. 

Recovery Priority Number: 7 

Smalltooth sawfish has a recovery priority number of 7, based on a moderate magnitude of 

threat, a low-moderate recovery potential, and the potential for economic conflicts. 

123
 
 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

Gulf Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi) 

Date Listed: September 30, 

1991, listed jointly by NMFS 

and FWS (56 FR 49653) 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: The 

Final Recovery Plan for the 

Gulf sturgeon was published 

in September 1995. No revisions have been made to the plan. 

Species Status: The Gulf sturgeon is an anadromous fish occurring from the Lake 

Pontchartrain/Pearl River system in Louisiana east to the Suwannee River in Florida and in the 

Gulf of Mexico. Adults spawn in large coastal rivers in the summer; they migrate downstream in 

the fall and winter cued by water temperature into adjacent bays, nearshore coastal waters, and 

the Gulf of Mexico to forage and grow. Juveniles and sub-adults inhabit the rivers year-round. 

No estimate of the historical population size of Gulf sturgeon is available. 

New population estimates since 2006 are available for the Suwannee and Choctawhatchee rivers: 

the Suwannee population has increased in size (about 9,700 fish) and average weight, and the 

Choctawhatchee has about 2,800 fish, mostly juveniles and sub-adults. A survey focusing on 

juveniles initiated on the Pascagoula River (the first since Hurricane Katrina) revealed they 

inhabit the estuary until a cold event occurs, when they make extensive excursions into deeper 

nearshore waters (apparently the high salinity is not limiting). While the overall status of the 

Gulf sturgeon is considered stable, trends for individual riverine populations are unknown or 

unclear and likely vary across the range; most population estimates are dated and some are 

undetermined. 

A joint NMFS/FWS 5-year review of the status of the Gulf sturgeon is currently underway and is 

expected to be finalized in September 2009. In coordination with the 5-year review, NMFS is 

synthesizing data to accommodate a range-wide Gulf sturgeon stock assessment to provide 

critical information for developing both the 5-year review and for revising the Gulf sturgeon 

recovery criteria. 

Threats and Impacts: Population-limiting factors for the Gulf sturgeon include habitat loss and 

degradation that is being exacerbated by water allocation, drought conditions, and development; 

poor water quality (including temperature, dissolved oxygen, and contaminants); and barriers 

(i.e., dams and sills) that impede access to historical spawning areas. 

Conservation Actions: During 2006–2008, key conservation actions included: 

•	 Relocation trawling is being used in dredging operations to move Gulf sturgeon out of the 

dredges’ path. Nets are dragged over the benthos in front of the dredge to capture 

sturgeon and sea turtles, and the animals are then moved out of the pathway. 

124
 
 

 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

•	 Seasonal in-water work periods also assist in reducing incidental take. When possible, 

in-water work occurs when the species is absent from the project area to avoid take. 

•	 Placards have been posted and distributed along the Suwannee River where Gulf sturgeon 

frequently jump out of the water and sometimes strike boaters: Gulf sturgeon factsheets, 

large signs, and stickers provide life history information and warn boaters to proceed at 

slow speeds. 

•	 NMFS continues to fund a number of research projects to increase existing knowledge of 

how the Gulf sturgeon uses habitat. Data sets including prey distribution, sediment 

composition, water quality, and other environmental parameters are being compiled and 

developed into GIS data layers (and verified with field sampling) to be used as a 

predictive tool to identify areas of greater and lesser value in terms of Gulf sturgeon 

foraging habitat. 

•	 Molecular techniques are being used to assess the relatedness of individual Gulf sturgeon 

in egg collections. This information will determine genetic relatedness and assess the 

number of families represented in the clutch. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

•	 Update the 1995 Recovery Plan and Recovery Criteria. 

•	 Establish section 6 agreement with Gulf Coast states to allow competition for section 6 

research funds. 

•	 Re-survey rivers within range, especially those heavily impacted by Hurricane Katrina. 

•	 Investigate population demographics to better understand vulnerable life stages. 

•	 Continue cooperation with FWS for joint management and coordinated research. 

•	 Nurture partnerships with states and researchers. 

Recovery Priority Number: 8 

This ranking corresponds to a moderate degree of threat, low to moderate potential for recovery, 

and the absence of conflict with economic activities. In accordance with the FWS Recovery 

Priority Guidelines, the FWS has assigned the Gulf sturgeon a priority number of 12. The 

difference in numerical value between NMFS and the FWS reflects the consideration of 

taxonomic classifications, which are used by FWS but not by NMFS in designating recovery 

priority numbers. 

125
 
 

 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

Shortnose Sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) 

Date Listed: March 11, 196715 

(32 FR 4001) 

Legal Status: Endangered 

Recovery Plan Status: The final 

recovery plan for shortnose sturgeon was 

published in December 1998. 

Species Status: The shortnose sturgeon 

is an anadromous fish inhabiting large 

coastal rivers along the eastern seaboard 

of North America from the Saint John 

River in New Brunswick, Canada, south to the St. Johns River in Florida. Its life history 

includes fidelity to the natal river resulting in a substantial amount of reproductive isolation and 

genetic distinctiveness between most populations. Because of the substantial reproductive 

isolation of shortnose sturgeon between rivers and river systems, NMFS recognized 19 separate 

populations in the final recovery plan. To date, NMFS has not formally listed DPSs of shortnose 

sturgeon under the ESA and shortnose sturgeon are listed range-wide as endangered. 

NMFS initiated a status review of shortnose sturgeon in 2007, and the review is still underway. 

As part of the review, the status review team has examined population structure to evaluate 

whether DPSs should be designated. While historical population estimates for shortnose 

sturgeon are not available, fishery accounts indicate sturgeon were previously abundant in many 

river systems along the U.S. East Coast. The current status of the species is mixed as trends in 

abundance and population demographics vary for the different river systems across their range 

(Table 6); population estimates for numerous shortnose sturgeon populations remain 

undetermined or are dated. As resources permit, NMFS continues to support surveys of river 

systems where shortnose are present or are suspected. 

Table 6. Abundance estimates for 10 shortnose sturgeon populations presented from north to south. The estimates 

are for known spawning populations with the exception of the Penobscot River where spawning status is currently 

under investigation. “Juv.”=Juvenile life stage. 

Stephen J. Fernandes, pursuant to ESA permit # 1595-02 

River or River System 

Years 

Surveyed 

Population 

Estimate 

95% Confidence 

Interval 

Age Class 

Represented 

Penobscot 2006–2007 1,531 885–5,681 Juv. & Adult 

Kennebec System 1998–2000 9,488 6,942–13,358 Adult 

Merrimack 1988–1990 32 20–79 Adult 

Connecticut Upper 1994 ~300 188–1,264 Adult 

Connecticut Lower 1989–2002 1,042–1,580 Adult 

Hudson 1994–1997 56,708 50,862–64,072 Spawners 

Delaware 1999–2003 12,047 10,757–13,589 Adult 

Cooper 1996–1998 301 Spawners 

Savannah 1999 ~1,000 Juv. & Adult 

Ogeechee 1999–2004 147–266 Juv. & Adult 

Altamaha 2003–2005 6,320 4,389–9,249 Juv. & Adult 

15 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. 

126 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

Threats and Impacts: Threats to shortnose sturgeon also vary by river system (see Table 7). 

Many threats to the species are range-wide, while others are specific to populations in the 

apparently grown or stabilized. In other rivers, particularly in the southeast, sturgeon population 

size remains low or the status is unknown. 

southeast. As threats have been reduced in some rivers, shortnose sturgeon populations have 

Across the range, dam construction and pollution associated with industrial growth in the late 

1800s and early 1900s has resulted in substantial loss of suitable habitat. In addition, habitat 

alterations from discharges, dredging or disposal of material into rivers, or related development 

activities involving estuaries/riverine mudflats and marshes, remain constant threats. In addition, 

bycatch, predominantly in shad gillnet fisheries, likely adversely impacts the recovery of some 

shortnose sturgeon populations, although the extent of this bycatch is not currently known. 

Table 7: A summary of some of the major threats to shortnose sturgeon by various river systems throughout the 

range. It is important to note that the summary of threats is not exhaustive and that these are not the only river 

systems in which shortnose sturgeon occur or have ever occurred. 

Water Commercial 

Population Unit Dams Dredging Quality/Quantity Bycatch 

Penobscot X X 

Kennebec Complex X X 

Merrimack X X 

Connecticut, X X X 

Housatonic X X 

Hudson X X 

Delaware X X 

"Chesapeake" & C&D X X X 

Susquehanna X X 

Potomac X X X 

Roanoke X X X 

Chowan X X 

Tar/Pamlico X X 

Neuse X X X 

New X 

Cape Fear X X X X 

Winyah Bay Complex X X X X 

Lower Santee X X X 

Cooper X X 

X X Santee Cooper Reservoir 

System
 

ACE Basin 

Savannah X X X X 

Ogeechee X X 

Altamaha X 

Satilla X 

St. Mary's X 

St. John's X X 

Large-scale factors impacting riverine water quality and quantity that likely exacerbate habitat 

threats to shortnose sturgeon include drought, intra- and interstate water allocation, and climate 

change. The southeastern United States has been experiencing several years of ongoing drought 

and it is predicted these conditions will persist, exacerbating the existing impacts from dams. 

Water allocation issues are increasing with human population growth. Abnormally low stream 

127
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

flow can restrict access to habitat areas, reduce thermal refugia, and exacerbate water quality 

issues such as high temperature, low dissolved oxygen, and elevated nutrient and contaminant 

levels. Further reduction in flow would likely disrupt spawning cues and upstream migration 

may occur earlier; a disparity between prey availability and demand by larvae could ensue. Data 

from gauging stations indicate that periods when river flows are inadequate to protect the 

riverine environment are becoming more frequent. Human-induced modifications to freeflowing rivers also influence coastal and marine systems; often reducing the ability of the system 

to adapt to natural variability and change. 

Conservation Actions: During 2006–2008, key conservation actions included: 

•	 A status review for the species that assesses each riverine population was initiated in 

2007 and will evaluate current conservation status. 

•	 Use of relocation trawling to minimize incidental take of shortnose sturgeon in dredge 

operations. This method was first used to relocate Gulf sturgeon wherein shrimp trawlers 

sweep benthos in the path of the oncoming dredge. 

•	 An ESA collection permit was issued that allows researchers along the eastern seaboard 

to obtain tissue samples for research and diagnostic analyses from shortnose sturgeon 

found dead in the wild or from captive facilities. The same permit allows parts and 

whole specimens to be held by educators, allowing sturgeon mounts and preserved 

specimens to assist in outreach and education. 

•	 Since 2006, NMFS has sponsored surveys and/or research on the following rivers: 

Penobscot, Merrimack, Delaware, Potomac, Pee Dee, Savannah, Altamaha, Ogeechee, 

Satilla, and St. Marys. Additional surveys are being conducted on the following rivers to 

assist in the relicensing of hydropower plants and/or bridge construction: Hudson, 

Connecticut, Saluda, Congaree, Broad, Wateree, and Santee. 

•	 NMFS has also supported research in many areas, including population structure (genetic 

analysis), movement, diet, health assessments, life history, habitat use, behavior, age and 

growth, spawning success, sampling techniques and effects of altered environmental 

parameters (dissolved oxygen and temperature), and contaminants. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: Several priority recovery actions are needed, including the 

following: 

•	 A revised recovery plan addressing threats on a riverine-scale needs to be developed to 

identify conservation actions. 

•	 Comprehensive information on distribution, population dynamics, juvenile movement 

and behavior, and factors leading to reproductive success is needed. 

•	 Range-wide genetic assessments to determine whether clinal differences are adaptive or a 

result of isolation or mutation. 

•	 New and more reliable estimates are needed of population size, age structure, and 

recruitment to help determine appropriate recovery actions and inform future status 

reviews. 

•	 Research and testing to determine effective sturgeon-passage facilities around locks and 

dams for both upstream and downstream movement are essential for recovery in rivers 

where access to spawning or foraging habitats is restricted. 

128
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

Recovery Priority Number: 5 

The recovery priority number for shortnose sturgeon is 5, based on a moderate magnitude of 

threat, high recovery potential, and anticipated conflict with development projects or other 

economic activity. 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. 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. 

129
 
 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

Green Sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris) – Southern DPS 

Date Listed: April 7, 

2006 (71 FR 17757) 

Legal Status: 

Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: 

No recovery plan has 

been developed for the 

Southern DPS of the 

North American green sturgeon, but a contract has been awarded for developing a recovery plan. 

A proposed critical habitat designation was published in September 2008 (73 FR 52084) and is 

expected to be finalized in June 2009. 

Species Status: The Southern DPS of green sturgeon includes all green sturgeon populations 

south of the Eel River, with the only known spawning population being in the Sacramento River 

(although spawning may have occurred historically in the Feather River basin). Spawning 

habitat may have extended into the three major branches of the Sacramento River—the Little 

Sacramento River, the Pit River system, and the McCloud River. Currently, Keswick and Shasta 

dams on the mainstem of the Sacramento River block passage to the upper river, while the Red 

Bluff Diversion Dam blocks passage to a portion of the spawning population on a seasonal basis 

after May 15. 

Acoustic tagging studies investigating oceanic migration and behavior patterns of Northern DPS 

(originating from freshwater systems north of and including the Eel River in California) and 

Southern DPS (originating from freshwater systems south of the Eel River) 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). 

No direct evidence demonstrates a clear decline in abundance of Southern DPS green sturgeon, 

but two pieces of indirect evidence suggest a downward trend in abundance. The first is the most 

recent abundance estimates for legal-size white sturgeon (117–183 cm FL) in San Pablo Bay, 

generated by the CDFG, indicating about an order of magnitude 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 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 3.5 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. The primary threat to the Southern DPS is 

the reduction of spawning to limited areas within the Sacramento River due to dams and other 

A green sturgeon captured in the Gulf of Alaska in 2006. Picture taken by Duane Stevenson, NMFS. 

130
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

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 but potentially serious threat to Southern DPS fish 

because of high 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 U.S. 

waters by recent fishing regulations. 

Conservation Actions: During 2006–2008, key conservation actions included: 

•	 Fishing regulations: For recreational fisheries, the California Fish and Game Commission 

approved revised regulations, effective March 1, 2007, to prohibit the retention of green 

sturgeon, alter the slot (size) limit and bag limit (one fish daily; three fish annually) for 

white sturgeon, and require implementation of a sturgeon report card system. The 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife also prohibited the retention of green sturgeon in the Columbia River recreational 

fishery from Bonneville Dam downstream to the mouth of the River, effective January 1, 

2007. For commercial fisheries, the retention of green sturgeon has been prohibited in the 

Columbia River by emergency rule since July 2006 and statewide in Washington by 

permanent rule since January 26, 2007. In California, commercial fishing for sturgeon has 

been prohibited since 1917. 

•	 Ongoing salvage of green sturgeon at the Tracy Fish Collection Facility and the Skinner 

Delta Fish Protective Facility in the South Delta. 

•	 Ongoing green sturgeon-focused research, including fish passage, genetics studies, and 

acoustic tagging and tracking studies to better understand the distribution and migration of 

green sturgeon. 

•	 Activities and projects conducted under the CVPIA 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: 

•	 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-meter 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-meter bathymetric contour along the western coast of the 

continental United States, Canada, and Alaska. 

131
 
 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

•	 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 is 5. The 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, particularly in spawning and rearing habitat, are carefully 

monitored and limited. There is conflict between the recovery of the Southern DPS and 

economic interests. Central Valley agriculture, other sources of water resource use, and 

commercial and recreational fishing are among the industries that will be affected by efforts to 

recover the Southern DPS. 

132
 
 

 

 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

PLANT RECOVERY 

Johnson’s Seagrass (Halophila johnsonii) 

Date Listed: September 14, 1998 (63 FR 49035) 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: The Johnson’s Seagrass 

Recovery Plan was finalized in September 2002. 

NMFS is currently revising the plan. 

Species Status: Based on the 5-year review 

(November 2007) for the species, Johnson’s seagrass 

remains vulnerable to natural and anthropogenic 

factors, and the species still meets the definition of 

“threatened” under the ESA because it is still likely to 

become an endangered species within the foreseeable 

future throughout its range. None of the threats 

identified at listing have been curtailed or eliminated. 

Threats and Impacts: With the exception of trampling, all of the threats to the species 

identified in the original listing impact the species’ status. These include dredging and filling, 

shoreline construction and modification, prop scarring, altered water quality, siltation, and storm 

events. Cumulative impacts are a concern for the species. There has been no improvement in 

the species’ status in terms of its risk of extinction since its listing. Finally, no state or local 

efforts to protect Johnson’s seagrass are ameliorating the impacts and threats to the species, even 

given Florida’s rigorous permitting program regarding projects that impact seagrasses generally. 

Florida has not listed or otherwise identified Johnson’s seagrass for specific protections. 

Conservation Actions: During 2006–2008, key conservation actions included: 

•	 Established permanent monitoring plots within the range of the species. 

•	 Supported studies to determine whether local, state, and federal water management 

practices within the range of the species constitute a potential threat to the species’ 

survival. 

•	 Supported studies to determine the maximum dispersal distance to allow for stable 

vegetative recruitment and genetic diversity. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: Priority actions needed to recovery the species include: 

•	 Continue to study the mechanism for recruitment of patches and maximum dispersal 

distance of vegetative fragments. 

•	 Continue to monitor the northern and southern distribution limits of the species and 

monitor the temporal variation in these limits. 

•	 Monitor water management practices within the range of the species to determine the 

potential threats to species survival from freshwater discharges. 

Photo credit: Lori Morris 

133
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

Recovery Priority Number: 7 

Johnson’s seagrass is assigned a recovery priority number of 7, based on a moderate magnitude 

of threats, a low-moderate recovery potential, and potential for economic conflict. The recovery 

potential was considered low-moderate and the economic conflict was considered to exist based 

on anticipated in-water future construction projects (i.e., dredging, dock construction, and 

projects that adversely modify water quality). 

134
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

INVERTEBRATE RECOVERY 

White Abalone (Haliotis sorenseni) 

Date Listed: May 29, 2001 

(66 FR 29046) 

Legal Status: Endangered 

Recovery Plan Status: The final 

Recovery Plan was completed in October 

2008. 

Species Status: Commercial and 

recreational exploitation of white abalone 

has occurred over the past 50 years in 

California, and landings data indicate that 

catches reached a peak between 1972 and 

1974 and declined to near zero in just 5 

years. 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 2008 (<5 per hectare; Figure 7). It is 

believed that overfishing drove white abalone densities to such low levels that, despite fishery 

closure in 1996, adults do not occur in high enough densities to successfully reproduce, resulting 

in repeated recruitment failure and an effective population size near zero. While the most recent 

estimates of total population size in three Southern California locations are higher than those 

Photo credit: John Butler, NMFS, Southwest Fisheries Science Center 

Density of white abalone (per ha) 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

Tanner Bank 2002 

Tanner Bank 2004 

Tanner Bank 2008 

30-40 40-50 50-60 

Depth (m) 

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; Table 8) and 

the absence of small individuals 

(<9 cm) in extant populations. 

Although commercial fishing for 

white abalone in Mexico is not 

occurring, data from surveys 

conducted in October 2006 

suggest that populations in 

Mexico have also declined 

dramatically in recent years. Figure 7. Density of white abalone by depth at Tanner Bank 

(2002, 2004, and 2008). Error bars represent standard error. 

135
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

Table 8. Nearest neighbor estimates over time for Tanner Bank. These data represent the number of individuals 

(and percent of observed individuals) found less than 2 m and greater than 20 m from the next nearest abalone 

observed. Also shown are the percentage of individuals observed in groups of two or more individuals that are all 

less than 2 m apart from one another. 

Year Abalone sighted <2m >20m % in groups 

2002 195 28 (14%) 65 (33%) 6.0 

2004 20 7 (35%) 5 (25%) -

2008 73 12 (16%) 36 (51%) 2.8 

Threats and Impacts: 

•	 Critically low levels of abundance (<0.1 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. 

•	 Illegal harvesting and inadequate enforcement. 

•	 Reduced genetic diversity resulting in lower reproductive potential and fitness of wild 

populations. 

•	 Spread of disease from captive propagated individuals to wild individuals during 

supplementation. 

•	 Habitat modification through human activities and environmental/climate change. 

Conservation Actions: During 2006–2008, key conservation actions included: 

•	 Assessment and monitoring of historic and current white abalone populations at the 

Northern and Southern Channel Islands and offshore banks by NMFS, the National Park 

Service, the Channel Islands Marine Resources Institute, and CDFG. 

•	 Continued development of a captive propagation program at the Channel Islands Marine 

Resources Institute, University of California Santa Barbara, and the University of 

California Davis’ Bodega Bay Marine Laboratory. 

•	 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. 

•	 Examination and assessment of future outplanting sites and methodologies by NMFS, the 

Channel Islands Marine Resources Institute, National Park Service, CDFG, and Channel 

Islands National Marine Sanctuary. 

•	 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. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

•	 Assess and monitor subpopulations of white abalone in the wild in cooperation with the 

State of California, other federal agencies, private organizations, and the Mexican 

government. 

•	 Identify and characterize existing and potential white abalone habitat through acoustic 

remote sensing technology. 

•	 Protect white abalone populations and their habitat in the wild. 

•	 Continue and expand a captive propagation program for white abalone in California. 

•	 Develop enforcement, public outreach, and education plans. 

136
 
 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

Recovery Priority Number: 2 

The white abalone priority number of 2 is based on a high magnitude of threat, a high recovery 

potential, and the potential for economic conflict. The 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 dying without leaving younger animals to take their place. The recovery 

potential for this species is high if captive breeding in a disease-free facility can be achieved and 

these animals can be used to supplement and/or create viable wild populations. Another key 

component to recovering this species is to increase monitoring and enforcement efforts and limit 

anthropogenic impacts in areas where white abalone currently occur and in areas where they will 

be re-established. The latter requirement may create conflict between the recovery of white 

abalone and economic interests. Commercial and recreational fishing for all species of abalone 

is currently closed in Southern California; however, there is continued pressure to open offshore 

island areas to fishing non-listed abalone species, which could put listed species at greater risk of 

illegal take even in seemingly remote areas (e.g., offshore islands and banks primarily >100 feet 

deep). 

137
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

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

Date Listed: May 9, 2006 (71 FR 26852) 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: A Recovery 

Outline was completed in August 2006 and 

a Recovery Team was appointed in 

September 2006. A draft Recovery Plan is 

anticipated to be available for public 

comment in summer/fall 2009. 

Species Status: Elkhorn and staghorn 

corals are branching corals found in shallow 

(<30 m) tropical waters throughout the 

wider Caribbean. Studies of historical 

distribution and abundance patterns for 

these two species focus on percent coverage, density, and relative size of the corals during three 

periods: pre-1980, the 1980s and 1990s, and recent (since 2000). Few data are present before 

the 1980 baseline, likely due in part to researchers’ tendencies to neglect careful measurement of 

abundance of ubiquitous species. Both acroporid species underwent precipitous declines in the 

early 1980s throughout their ranges, and this decline has continued, albeit at a much slower rate. 

Although quantitative data on former distribution and abundance are scarce, in the few locations 

where quantitative data are available (e.g., Florida Keys, Dry Tortugas, Belize, Jamaica, and the 

U.S. Virgin Islands), declines in abundance (coverage and colony numbers) are estimated at >97 

percent. 

Threats and Impacts: The major threats to both species are disease, temperature-induced 

bleaching, ocean acidification, and physical damage from hurricanes. These threats are severe, 

ongoing, and synergistic, and have displayed an increasing trend in the recent past. Disease is 

widespread, episodic, and unpredictable in its occurrence and results in high amounts of 

mortality. Sea-surface temperature and ocean acidity are expected to continue rising over time 

and may exacerbate disease impacts. The number of hurricanes affecting Caribbean reefs has 

increased over the past two decades. The threats to elkhorn and staghorn corals are exacerbated 

further by less severe threats (e.g., nutrients, sedimentation, anchoring, and boating), which 

degrade coral condition and increase synergistic stress effects (e.g., bleaching). 

Conservation Actions: Since listing, protective regulations pursuant to section 4(d) have been 

put in place and critical habitat has been designated. The following projects were also supported 

in 2006–2008: 

•	 Assessed the status and conducted monitoring of Acropora in the Eastern Caribbean, 

Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. 

•	 Developed a population model that will enable managers to choose recovery strategies 

for elkhorn and staghorn coral based on quantitative, defensible guidelines. 

Staghorn Coral 

Photo credit: Andy Bruckner, NOAA 

138
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

•	 Identified acroporid propagule transfer zones (i.e., zones within which sexually and/or 

asexually produced transplants may be moved safely). 

•	 Performed chemical and biological analyses to characterize Caribbean reef sites in 

relation to place-specific acroporid reproductive condition. 

•	 Supported the maintenance and expansion of acroporid field nursery in the Florida Keys. 

•	 Responded to several vessel groundings in Florida, Puerto Rico, and U.S. Virgin Islands 

to reattach injured acroporids and work with responsible parties to conduct other 

restoration efforts. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: The focus of the initial phase of recovery will be the 

protection of the current species distribution and their habitat, and finding additional populations. 

Public awareness through various outreach efforts may play a role in generating voluntary 

protection actions. The recovery effort should be based on existing conservation efforts. 

Specific actions that will be undertaken early in the process may include the following: 

•	 Establish large-scale in situ nurseries. 

•	 Identify appropriate regulatory mechanisms for threat abatement. 

•	 Identify the specific areas used by the species requiring habitat conservation and assign 

priorities to each area. 

•	 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 have a recovery priority of 7, due to a moderate magnitude of threat, 

low-moderate recovery potential, and the potential for economic conflicts. 

139
 
 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

MARINE MAMMAL RECOVERY 

Seals and Sea Lions 

Caribbean Monk Seal (Monachus tropicalis) 

Date Listed: March 11, 1967 (32 FR 4001) 

Date Delisted: 10/28/2008 (73 FR 63901) 

Legal Status: Extinct 

Recovery Plan Status: No recovery plan exists 

for the Caribbean Monk Seal. 

Species Status: The Caribbean monk seal was delisted from the ESA on October 28, 2008, and 

is considered extinct. This is the only known case where humans drove a marine mammal to 

extinction in tropical seas. While the pre-exploitation population is unknown, it is estimated at 

between 233,000 and 338,000 animals. Overharvesting in the 1800s made positive sightings 

increasingly less common by the turn of the 20th century. In the early 20th century, the rise in 

collections of skeletons for private and museum displays expedited monk seal extinction. This 

species historically ranged throughout the Caribbean region, from South Carolina to the northern 

coast of South America. Despite extensive surveys over the past 50 years, there has not been an 

authoritative sighting since 1952. 

Threats and Impacts: Overharvesting in the 1800s was a significant factor in reducing species 

numbers and fragmenting populations. The tame behavior of seal pups probably increased their 

vulnerability to harvest and collection. Non-harvest disturbances related to human settlement 

expansion around Caribbean monk seal haulouts and rookeries likely contributed to species 

decline. Historical observations documented that adults were easily disturbed when in proximity 

to humans. Prey decline may have influenced declines in some localized cases. Scientific and 

recreational collection also contributed to species extinction. 

Conservation Actions: No conservation actions were conducted during 2006–2008. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: Because this species is extinct, no priority recovery actions 

are needed. 

Priority Recovery Number: Not Applicable 

Photo credit: New York Zoological Society 1910 

140
 
 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

Guadalupe Fur Seal (Arctocephalus townsendi) 

Date Listed: December 16, 1985 (50 FR 51252) 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: No recovery plan has been 

completed for the Guadalupe fur seal. 

Species Status: Commercial sealing during the 19th 

century reduced the once-abundant Guadalupe fur 

seal to near extinction in 1894. The size of the 

population prior to the commercial harvests of the 

19th century is not known, but estimates range from 

20,000 to 100,000 animals. Prior to the harvest, this 

species ranged from Monterey Bay, California, to 

the Revillagigedo Islands, Mexico. The capture of two adult males at Guadalupe Island in 1928 

established the species’ return; however, 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. 

Photo credit: NOAA 

141
 
 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

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. 

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 2006–2008 time frame. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: As most of the range of this species lies in Mexico, no 

priority recovery actions are needed at this time for the Guadalupe fur seal. 

Recovery Priority Number: 10 

The recovery priority number for the Guadalupe fur seal is designated as 10, due to low 

magnitude of threat, a high recovery potential given that the population is increasing, and the 

absence of significant conflict with economic projects. 

142
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

Hawaiian Monk Seal (Monachus schauinslandi) 

Date Listed: November 23, 1976 

(41 FR 51611) 

Legal Status: Endangered 

Recovery Plan Status: The first 

Recovery Plan for the Hawaiian 

Monk Seal was completed by NMFS 

in 1983. NMFS published a revised 

Recovery Plan in August 2007. 

Species Status: Hawaiian monk 

seals are found throughout the Hawaiian Archipelago. The best current estimate of Hawaiian 

monk seal total population size is 1,208 seals—1,125 in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands 

(NWHI), and 83 in the main Hawaiian Islands (MHI). The first range-wide beach count surveys 

of Hawaiian monk seals were conducted in the late 1950s. Surveys were repeated throughout the 

1960s and 1970s, and results suggest that the species declined by about 50 percent between the 

late 1950s and the mid-1970s. More recently, beach counts declined rapidly from 1985–1993, 

and then became relatively stable until the current decline began in 2001. Total abundance at the 

six main NWHI sites (French Frigate Shoals, Laysan, Lisianski, Pearl and Hermes, Midway, and 

Kure) is declining at a rate of about 4 percent per year. Since 2000, many sites have shown 

indications of decline in abundance, apparently due to low juvenile survival. The decline at 

French Frigate Shoals is of particular consequence to the welfare of the overall population 

because this site once accounted for over 50 percent of the total non-pup beach counts in the 

NWHI. While that proportion has now dropped to approximately 25 percent of its observed 

peak, there are still more seals at French Frigate Shoals than any other island or atoll. 

Although monk seals historically occurred throughout the Hawaiian Archipelago, the great 

majority of the population is now constrained to the NWHI. Human settlement appears to have 

largely excluded monk seals from the MHI, although seal bones have been found at 

archeological sites dating from 1400–1700. From 1928 to 1956, seven monk seal sightings were 

documented in the MHI, and Niihau residents reported that seals appeared there in the 1970s. 

Since 1990, an increasing number of sightings and births have occurred in the MHI. Combined 

aerial and ground surveys in the MHI counted 45 hauled-out monk seals in 2000, and 52 in 2001. 

Sightings in the MHI tallied 77 individually identifiable monk seals in 2005, and 83 in 2006. 

Documented annual births of monk seal pups in the MHI have increased since the mid-1990s. 

Together, these observations suggest that monk seals are recolonizing the MHI. 

Threats and Impacts: There are eight primary threats to the recovery of the Hawaiian monk 

seal: (1) food limitation, (2) entanglement, (3) shark predation, (4) infectious diseases, (5) habitat 

loss, (6) fishery interactions, (7) male aggression, and (8) human interactions. 

•	 Food limitation is affecting monk seal population growth in the NWHI. At French 

Frigate Shoals, the juvenile survival has declined most dramatically with significantly 

smaller pup and juvenile sizes, consistent with signs of food limitation. In recent years, 

Photo credit: NOAA 

143
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

low juvenile survival, in part due to food limitation, has been evident at all NWHI 

subpopulations. 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, food limitation is a major threat to the 

recovery of the monk seal. 

•	 Hawaiian monk seals have one of the highest documented entanglement rates of any 

pinniped species, and marine debris and derelict fishing gear are chronic forms of 

pollution affecting monk seal habitat in the NWHI. The number of monk seals found 

entangled has not changed, nor has there been a reduction in the accumulation rates of 

marine debris in the NWHI. 

•	 In recent years, shark predation on monk seal pups has increased 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. 

•	 Recent MHI monk seal deaths have heightened concern about monk seal exposure to 

diseases not previously encountered, such as leptospirosis, toxoplasmosis, and West Nile 

virus. The lack of antibodies in monk seals to these diseases makes them extremely 

vulnerable to potential infection. While the frequency of disease outbreaks may be rare, 

their potentially devastating effects, should they spread throughout the population, makes 

infectious diseases a serious threat. 

•	 The loss of terrestrial habitat is a significant issue of concern in the NWHI, which are 

mostly low-lying atolls subject to beach loss from storm erosion and sea level rise. While 

some habitat loss (e.g., the subsidence of Whaleskate Island at French Frigate Shoals) has 

already been observed, sea level rise over the longer term may threaten a large portion of 

the resting and pupping habitat in the NWHI. 

•	 Due to management actions, direct and indirect fishery interactions between commercial 

fisheries and Hawaiian monk seals in the NWHI are currently limited or nonexistent. 

However, monk seals in the MHI are subject to hooking and entanglement in fishing 

gear; several seals have required removal of embedded hooks from recreational fishing 

gear, and recent mortalities in gillnets have occurred. 

•	 The primary identified cause of adult and immature female mortality affecting the 

recovery potential in the monk seal population during the 1980s and early 1990s was 

injury and often death caused by multiple male aggression (especially at Laysan and 

Lisianski islands). Most recently, this emerged as a serious issue at French Frigate 

Shoals in the late 1990s. While this threat tends to be episodic (it is usually limited in 

geographic area at any given time) and the methods for mitigating it have been 

successful, this is still considered a serious threat. 

•	 Monk seals in the NWHI avoid pupping on beaches that are frequented by humans. 

However, in the MHI, some seals appear to be getting accustomed to humans, and 

pupping has increased in recent years, even on beaches with daily human activity. If the 

MHI population grows, both in absolute number and proportion of total abundance, 

disturbance of seals by humans and their pets will become a larger management 

challenge. 

144
 
 

 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

Conservation Actions: During 2006–2008, key conservation actions included: 

•	 Short-term response actions for haul-outs, pupping events, de-hookings, entanglements, 

mortalities, etc. 

•	 Long-term response actions for conditioned seals, abandoned pups, relocations, etc. 

•	 Interagency collaborations: Memorandum of Agreement with the University of Hawaii 

at Hilo and the U.S. Coast Guard, State of Hawaii (e.g., Incidental Take Permit 

Coordinator), Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary, National 

Parks Service, etc. 

•	 Hawaiian Monk Seal Volunteer Program: Annual meetings, volunteer manual, detailed 

trainings, monitoring events, newly organized non-profit status. 

•	 Semi-annual Main Hawaiian Islands Monk Seal Count: Ongoing, statewide outreach 

event with four completed thus far. 

•	 Supported State of Hawaii legislation: Designation as official State Mammal of Hawaii. 

•	 Other Outreach and Education activities: Oahu Lifeguard Marine Mammal Response 

Training, Hawaii State Public School Curriculum, Public Service Announcements, 

Preserve America Grant program to fund 5- to 6-minute video describing monk seals in 

Native Hawaiian culture, fairs and festivals building volunteer capacity to perform 

outreach, fact sheets. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: Top-priority Recovery Actions needed: 

1.	 Investigate and mitigate factors affecting food limitation. 

2.	 Prevent entanglements of monk seals. 

3.	 Reduce shark predation on monk seals. 

4.	 Continue population monitoring and research. 

Recovery Priority Number: 1 

The Hawaiian monk seal has a recovery priority number of 1 due to a high magnitude of threats, 

high recovery potential, and the potential for economic conflicts while implementing recovery 

actions. The magnitude of threat is considered to be high based on the population decline that 

has persisted for over 20 years. Although our understanding of the most serious threat of food 

limitation 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. 

145
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

Steller Sea Lion – Western and Eastern DPS (Eumetopias jubatus) 

Date Listed: Steller sea lions were originally 

listed as threatened as a single species on April 5,
 

1990 (55 FR 12645). In 1997, based on genetic 

and demographic dissimilarities, NMFS 

recognized two distinct population segments of 

Steller sea lions: a western and an eastern distinct 

population segment at Cape Suckling, Alaska 

[144°W longitude] (Figure 8) (62 FR 24345, 62 

FR 30772). 

Legal Status: 

Endangered (Western DPS) 

Threatened (Eastern DPS) 

Recovery Plan Status: The first Recovery Plan for Steller Sea Lions was completed in 

December 1992. A revised draft plan was released for public review and comment in May 2006 

and released on May 21, 2007 (72 FR 28473). The Final Recovery Plan was released on March 

8, 2008. 

Species Status: There appear to be two very distinct phases in the decline of the western DPS. 

The population declined about 70 percent between the late 1970s and 1990, but the initial decline 

likely began as early as the late 1950s in some areas. The rate of decline in the 1980s was very 

rapid, reaching about 15 percent per year during 1985–1989. During this period, mortality 

incidental to commercial fishing was thought to contribute to as much as 25 percent of the 

observed decline. In addition, during that period it was legal for fishermen to protect their gear 

and catch by shooting Steller sea lions. Adequate records on the magnitude of such takes are not 

available. Some evidence indicates that animals in this population were nutritionally stressed 

during this time period, while other sources of mortality (e.g., predation by killer whales and 

mortality associated with disease) cannot be quantified due to a lack of information. There were 

distinct differences in the rates and pattern of decline in the six subareas used to monitor this 

population: the eastern Gulf of Alaska, central Gulf, western Gulf, eastern Aleutians, central 

Aleutians, and western Aleutians. Therefore, it is possible that several factors were important in 

driving the population decline during this period. 

In the 1990s, the rate of decline in the western DPS decreased from 15 percent to 5 percent per 

year. This decrease in the rate of decline followed further environmental changes in the 1990s 

and the implementation of extensive fishery regulations intended to reduce direct impacts, such 

as shooting, and indirect impacts, such as competition for prey. During this decade, Steller sea 

lions did not appear to be nutritionally stressed. The primary factors associated with the decline 

during this period have not been identified. As was the case in the 1980s, the pattern and rate of 

declines in abundance varied significantly by subregion. 

Based on aerial surveys conducted in June and early July of 2008, the recent (2004–2008) overall 

trend in abundance of adult and juvenile (non-pup) Steller sea lions in the western DPS in Alaska 

Photo credit: Rolf Ream, National Marine Mammal Laboratory, 1993 

146
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

is either stable or slightly declining. This follows a brief (2000–2004) period of overall increase 

of approximately 3 percent/year. This brief period of overall increase, during which decline was 

still observed in large subregions, was the only period of increase observed since collection of 

trend information began in the 1970s. Current data indicate there is substantial variation in the 

recent (2004–2008) trend in abundance of non-pups among subregions throughout the range of 

this population. Abundance is still at relatively high rates in some parts of the range. 

Percentages listed below are the percent change between years: 

•	 The eastern Aleutians is the only consistently increasing area (+7%). 

•	 The western and central Aleutians declined at relatively high rates (–30% and –16%, 

respectively). 

•	 The count in the eastern Gulf of Alaska increased (+35%) but probably because of the 

timing of the survey and seasonal use of the area by sea lions from the eastern 

population. 

•	 The central and western Gulf of Alaska increased between 2004 and 2007 but 

declined slightly between 2007 and 2008. 

Figure 8. Steller Sea Lion Range and Rookeries 

Available information also indicates that the current relative stability of the population may 

depend on high adult survival and that declining birth rate may be a problem for this population 

in a significant part of its range. 

The eastern DPS was estimated to number between 46,000 and 58,000 animals in 2002, and has 

been increasing at approximately 3 percent per year since the late 1970s. Populations in 

Southeast Alaska, British Columbia, and Oregon have more than doubled in size since the late 

1970s. While no rookeries exist in Washington, the numbers of animals using haulouts in the 

state has been increasing. In California the population is thought to be stable or declining, with 

poor performance in the southern part of the state. Historically subjected to substantial mortality 

by humans, much of this DPS has recovered. 

147
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

Threats and Impacts: For the western DPS, the first slowing of the decline began in the 1990s, 

suggesting that the management measures implemented in the early 1990s may have been 

effective in reducing some anthropogenic effects (e.g., shooting, harassment, and incidental 

take). The apparent relative population stability or slight decline observed in recent years is 

correlated with comprehensive fishery management measures implemented since the late 1990s. 

However, because of the lack of recovery of this population, and continued decline in some large 

portions of its range, there is concern that potentially high threats to the recovery of this 

population remain. Most of the 61 recovery actions in the original 1992 recovery plan were 

accomplished to a substantial degree with one exception—the development of international 

conservation agreements. Much of the conservation effort under the 1992 recovery plan was 

focused on eliminating the most direct and certain causes of decline (e.g., shooting, incidental 

take). These efforts resulted in 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 to provide 

management with options for recovery actions. 

•	 Potential reduction in the competitive interactions between Steller sea lions and 

commercial fisheries for pollock, Atka mackerel, and Pacific cod in Alaska. 

•	 Acquisition of additional information on the status, foraging ecology, and survivorship of 

Steller sea lions. 

The extensive research program has increased the understanding of the relative impacts of threats 

that potentially impede the recovery of Steller sea lions. For the western DPS, NMFS has 

concluded that the following threats are now relatively minor: (1) Alaska Native subsistence 

harvest, (2) illegal shooting, (3) entanglement in marine debris, (4) disease, and (5) disturbance 

from vessel traffic and scientific research. 

Considerable uncertainty remains about the magnitude and likelihood of the following potential 

threats to the recovery of the western DPS (relative impacts in parentheses): competition with 

fisheries (potentially high), environmental variability (potentially high), incidental take by 

fisheries (low), toxic substances (medium), predation by killer whales (potentially high). 

Uncertainty, controversy, and disagreement within the scientific and stakeholder communities 

regarding the potential threat posed by killer whale predation is especially great, with 

conclusions about the magnitude of that threat being fairly polarized (low versus high). 

However, due to the uncertainty and the need to be precautionary in our assessment of possible 

threats to the recovery of this endangered DPS, NMFS has categorized the relative potential 

impact of this threat as “potentially high.” 

The Mineral Management Service’s 5-year (2007–2012) plan includes potential oil and gas 

activity in portions of the southeastern Bering Sea, in areas adjacent to, and within, Steller sea 

lion critical habitat. 

148
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

For the eastern DPS, many of the threats are similar (e.g. environmental variability, killer whale 

predation, toxic substances, disturbance, entanglement, shooting) to the western DPS. These 

threats do not appear to be at a level sufficient to keep populations from continuing to recover in 

many areas. For populations in the southern part of their range, climate change, increasing 

competition with other seal species, and other activities associated with high human population 

density may have more acute adverse impacts. 

Conservation Actions: During 2006–2008, key conservation actions included: 

•	 Revision and finalization of the Steller Sea Lion Recovery Plan following input and 

substantial involvement of a diverse recovery team, opportunities for public review and 

comment, and independent peer review. 

•	 Acquisition of high-quality aerial survey data throughout the range of the Steller sea lion 

in Alaska to enable evaluation of recent trends of non-pups in this endangered population. 

•	 Continued coordination of Steller sea lion research. 

•	 Issuance of a draft policy and guidance document for the issuance of research permits for 

Steller sea lions and northern fur seals following finalization of a report from an 

independent expert panel. 

•	 Completion of a Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Steller Sea 

Lion and Northern Fur Seal Research, resulting in the issuance of a Record of Decision in 

June 2007. 

•	 Completion of a biological opinion following consultation under Section 7 of the ESA 

related to NMFS’ preferred strategy for the issuance of grants and permits for scientific 

research on Steller sea lions and northern fur seals. This opinion concluded that the 

research program is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the endangered 

western Steller sea lion DPS or the threatened eastern Steller sea lion DPS. 

•	 Continuation of high-quality research on Steller sea lion foraging ecology, habitat use, 

status, health, and predation threat. 

•	 Continuation of cooperative research with Russian scientists on Steller sea lions in 

Russian waters. 

•	 Signing of co-management agreements for northern fur seals and Steller sea lions 

between NMFS and the Aleut Community of St. George Island and the Aleut Community 

of St. Paul Island. 

•	 Signing of an agreement between NMFS and the Aleut Marine Mammal Commission for 

the conservation and management of all marine mammal subsistence species with 

particular focus on Steller sea lions and harbor seals in November 2006. 

•	 Issuance of a cooperative agreement between NMFS and the Alaska Sea Otter and Steller 

Sea Lion Commission for outreach, education, and bio-sampling related activities. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

•	 Completion of analysis of impacts of groundfish fisheries on Steller sea lions and 

completion of ESA Section 7 consultations. 

•	 Continue to monitor trends in the abundance of pups and non-pups. 

•	 Research on adult female body condition, health, foraging, reproduction, and movements 

in the western part of the range in Alaska to better evaluate factors that may be impeding 

recovery. 

149
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

•	 Research on foraging ecology of all population segments in the western and central 

Aleutians. 

•	 Maintain or improve management actions until substantive evidence demonstrates that 

these measures can be reduced without limiting recovery. 

•	 Design and implement an adaptive management program to evaluate fishery conservation 

measures. 

•	 Develop a more detailed recovery task implementation plan, including a research 

implementation plan. An implementation plan needs to be developed that includes a 

comprehensive ecological and conceptual framework that integrates and further 

prioritizes the numerous recovery actions provided in this plan. The implementation plan 

will contain a synthesis of, and establish priorities among, the individual actions, as well 

as coordinate their implementation in a cohesive strategy. Several components will be 

integrated in the conceptual framework of the implementation plan: (1) the complex 

dynamics of the North Pacific marine ecosystem, (2) multiple causation in those systems, 

(3) the need for long-term research, (4) the monitoring required to assess the 

effectiveness of management regulations, and (5) the development of a modeling 

approach that examines possible effects of multiple threats on sea lion population 

dynamics to evaluate the strength of the evidence for different hypotheses. 

Recovery Priority Number: 7 (western DPS); 10 (eastern DPS) 

The western DPS has a recovery priority number of 7 due to a moderate magnitude of threats, 

moderate recovery potential, and the potential for economic conflict. The recovery priority 

number for the eastern DPS is 10 due to a low magnitude of threat, high recovery potential, and 

no significant potential for economic conflict. 

150
 
 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

Whales 

Beluga Whale – Cook Inlet DPS (Delphinapterus leucas) 

Date Listed: October 22, 2008 (73 FR 62919) 

Legal Status: Endangered 

Recovery Plan Status: No recovery plan has 

been written for this DPS. NMFS has prepared a 

final Conservation Plan for this DPS that serves 

many of the functions of a recovery plan and 

provides interim recovery measures until a 

recovery plan is available. NMFS intends to 

prepare a recovery plan for this species, and will 

begin that process after designating critical 

habitat as required by the ESA. 

Species Status: The most recent abundance estimate for this DPS is 375 whales. No reliable 

estimate of historic abundance exists, although NMFS has used partial survey data from the State 

of Alaska to estimate the carrying capacity to be 1,300 whales. Despite measures to regulate 

subsistence harvests by Alaskan Natives (only five beluga whales have been harvested since 

1999), the population is still in decline. An extinction risk analysis completed in 2008 projects a 

29 percent probability of extinction within 100 years for the Cook Inlet beluga. 

Threats and Impacts: The Cook Inlet beluga population may be affected by myriad natural and 

human impacts. Natural threats include stranding events, predation, parasitism and disease, and 

environmental change. Potential human impacts include subsistence harvest, poaching, fishing, 

pollution, vessel traffic, tourism and whale watching, coastal development, noise, oil and gas 

activities, and scientific research. Stranding events, reduced prey, and noise are threats that have 

been identified by NMFS as having both a high likelihood of occurrence and a high potential 

impact to species recovery in the next 5 years. The frequent use of shallow nearshore and 

estuarine habitats makes beluga whales particularly prone to threats from human activities. 

Conservation Actions: 

•	 The subsistence hunting of Cook Inlet belugas by Alaskan Natives is now managed 

through harvest regulations promulgated in 2008. 

•	 All subsistence harvests from this population require a plan of cooperation between 

NMFS and an Alaskan Native Association. While several such agreements have been 

prepared, there is no current agreement in place because no harvest is projected until the 

population’s numbers increase. 

•	 A final MMPA conservation plan was released in 2008. While this is not an ESA 

recovery plan, it does identify threats to this population and establishes actions for 

recovery. 

•	 NMFS is currently consulting under Section 7 of the ESA on various actions throughout 

the range of this DPS. 

Photo credit: NOAA National Marine Mammal Lab 

151
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

•	 Administration of the MMPA section 101(a)(5) program to authorize small takes of Cook 

Inlet beluga whales incidental to lawful activities, including mitigative measures to 

reduce adverse effects. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: NMFS has completed necessary actions to address the 

most immediate threat to this population through harvest regulation. While various threats 

remain, it is difficult to assign priority to these or necessarily to define actions to remove certain 

threats and promote recovery. For example, both predation by killer whales and deaths due to 

stranding along Cook Inlet’s shallow tidal flats may be significant impediments to recovery, but 

no practical remedial measures are known. Designation of critical habitat for this population is 

required to be completed within 12 months of listing, and NMFS intends to complete this process 

no later than October 2009. 

Recovery Priority Number: 3 

The magnitude of threats for this species is considered high, as the results of a NMFS population 

viability model place the risk of extinction to be very high in the near future. The recovery 

potential for the Cook Inlet beluga is considered low to moderate, because the population has not 

shown positive recovery after harvest controls were implemented and because some threats may 

be naturally occurring. Conflict is associated with this population, as it shares its range with the 

most populated and industrialized region of Alaska. 

152
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

Blue Whale (Balaenoptera musculus) 

Date Listed: June 2, 1970 (35 FR 18319) 

Legal Status: Endangered 

Recovery Plan Status: A recovery plan for 

the blue whale was completed in July 1998. 

Species Status: Blue whales are found in all 

oceans worldwide and are separated into 

populations from the North Atlantic, 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 at 400 to 1,400 whales. In the North Pacific, pre-exploitation population size is 

speculated to be approximately 4,900 blue whales. The current minimum population estimate 

for the eastern North Pacific stock is 1,136 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. 

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 2002 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. It is unclear whether this 

population is increasing, decreasing, or stable. 

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 strike is unknown. Ship-strike deaths and serious injuries averaged 

1.2 whales per year in California waters between 2003 and 2007. Four blue whale deaths in 

Photo credit: NOAA 

153
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

California waters in 2007 were attributed to ship strikes. Additional, unreported ship-strike 

mortality of blue whales likely occurs. Several of the whales photo-identified off California had 

large gashes on the dorsal body surface, thought to be caused by collisions with vessels. 

Other threats and impacts to blue whales include incidental take in fisheries, fishing gear 

entanglement, and anthropogenic noise. Off California and Mexico, there is potential for 

bycatch of blue whales in drift gillnet fisheries for swordfish and sharks. Observer coverage in 

gillnet fisheries that may interact with blue whales in California waters was approximately 20 

percent between 2006 and 2008. In the observed fisheries, no blue whale mortality was 

documented; however, entanglement rates may be underestimated, as blue whales may break 

through or carry away fishing gear, perhaps suffering unrecorded subsequent mortality. While 

impacts are unknown, the increasing levels of anthropogenic noise in the oceans may be an 

additional concern for blue whales. 

Conservation Actions: 

•	 Collaborative efforts in 2008 by NMFS, U.S. Coast Guard, and the National Ocean 

Service’s Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary resulted in periodic and frequent 

broadcast of vessel speed advisories of 10 knots or less when transiting the Santa Barbara 

Channel in periods when blue whales occur there. In the coming years NMFS expects to 

continue monitoring the occurrence of this species in nearshore waters and enact 

protective measures when the threat of ship strikes arise. 

•	 Implementing the blue whale strike response plan, including weekly overflights to record 

whale locations (see http://channelislands.noaa.gov/focus/alert.html). 

•	 Monitoring the status of the eastern North Pacific stock of blue whales via shipboard 

surveys, 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 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. 

154
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

Bowhead Whale (Balaena mysticetus) 

Date Listed: June 2, 1970 (35 FR 8495) 

Legal Status: Endangered 

Recovery Plan Status: No recovery plan has 

been written for this species. NMFS has 

determined the combined efforts of several 

managing entities, especially those of the 

International Whaling Commission, NMFS, 

and the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission 

(operating under a NOAA/AEWC Cooperative 

Agreement)—along with the fact that four of 

the five stocks of bowhead whales exist outside of U.S. waters—obviate the need for and benefit 

of a recovery plan. 

Species Status: Five populations of bowhead whales are currently recognized. The Spitsbergen 

population is found in the North Atlantic east of Greenland in the Greenland, Kara, and Barents 

Seas. Thought to have been the most numerous of bowhead populations (estimated unexploited 

population of 24,000 animals), the Spitsbergen bowhead is now severely depleted, possibly 

numbering in the tens of animals. 

The Davis Strait population is found in Davis Strait, Baffin Bay, and along the Canadian Arctic 

Archipelago. The current population is estimated at 350 animals and recovery is described as “at 

best” exceedingly slow. 

No reliable estimate exists for the Hudson Bay population. Recent estimates of 256 to 284 have 

been presented for the number of whales within Foxe Basin. There has been no appreciable 

recovery of this population. 

The Okhotsk Sea population may have been 3,000–6,500 animals, and may now number 

somewhere in the 300–400 range, although reliable population estimates are not currently 

available. 

The Western Arctic stock of bowhead whales is improving, and may be nearing a recovered 

status. The current abundance estimate for this stock is 10,545. This is considered to be between 

46 percent and 101 percent of pre-exploitation abundance. Some analysts suggest this stock may 

be approaching carrying capacity, although the population growth rate shows no sign of slowing. 

Threats and Impacts: While commercial exploitation of bowhead whales is prohibited, 

managed subsistence hunting in Alaska and Russia by native groups still occurs. Other current 

and projected threats include oil and gas exploration and development, interaction with 

commercial fishing gear, and water quality issues. Climate change may also present a threat to 

these whales, as high northern latitudes are expected to be affected more than other areas. Iceassociated animals, such as the bowhead whale, may be sensitive to changes in Arctic weather, 

Photo credit: NOAA 

155
 
 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

sea-surface temperatures, ice extent, and associated prey availability. However, the current and 

future effects of climate change on this species are poorly understood. 

Conservation Actions: 

•	 The subsistence harvest by Alaskan Natives of the Western Arctic population is closely 

managed through the International Whaling Commission, NMFS, and the Alaska Eskimo 

Whaling Commission. The most recent 5- year harvest quota was issued in 2008, and 

this group continues to set harvests at sustainable levels consistent with conservation and 

recovery. 

•	 Administration of the MMPA section 101(a)(5) program to authorize small takes of 

bowhead whales incidental to lawful activities, including mitigative measures to reduce 

adverse effects. 

•	 Ongoing consultations under Section 7 of the ESA concerning offshore oil and gas 

actions in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: The Western Arctic (U.S.) population is increasing at 

approximately 3 percent annually and may be nearing a recovered state. No priority actions are 

identified. 

Recovery Priority Number: 7 

The magnitude of threats for this species is considered moderate, as four of the five extant 

populations are greatly reduced and at precariously low levels, but extinction is not considered to 

be almost certain in the immediate future. The recovery potential for bowheads is considered 

low to moderate, as the limiting factors to at least four of the five populations are not sufficiently 

understood. At least some degree of conflict is associated with these populations. 

156
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

Fin Whale (Balaenoptera physalus) 

Date Listed: June 2, 1970 (35 FR 18319) 

Legal Status: Endangered 

Recovery Plan Status: A recovery plan was 

drafted in 2006 and is expected to be finalized 

in 2009. 

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 and the most 

current population estimate (1979) for fin whales in the southern oceans is 85,200. In the North 

Pacific, the total pre-exploitation population size of fin whales is estimated at 42,000 to 45,000. 

The most recent abundance estimate (early 1970s) for fin whales in the entire North Pacific basin 

is between 14,620 and 18,630. The current minimum population estimate for the 

California/Oregon/Washington stock is 2,316 whales. In the North Atlantic, the pre-exploitation 

population size for fin whales is estimated at 30,000 to 50,000; the current estimate of fin whale 

abundance for the entire North Atlantic is 23,000 to 39,000 whales. The current minimum 

population estimate for the western North Atlantic stock is 1,678 whales. 

The MMPA stock assessment reports for the fin whale recognize one stock in the U.S. North 

Atlantic Ocean (the western North Atlantic stock) and three stocks in the U.S. North Pacific 

(California/Oregon/Washington stock, Hawaii stock, and 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 United 

States, and are relatively commonly injured or killed by ship strikes off the U.S. East Coast. 

NMFS’ records on this stock from 2003 through 2007 yield an average of 2.2 human-caused 

deaths per year—1.0 per year resulting from fishery interactions or entanglements, and 1.2 due to 

collisions with vessels. Because fin whales are also among the main attractions of whalewatching enterprises in eastern Canada and the northeastern United States, they are regularly 

subjected to close and persistent following by vessels. 

Interaction with commercial fisheries and ship strikes are also threats to the Northeast Pacific 

stock. One fin whale mortality in 1999 was attributed to the Gulf of Alaska pollock trawl 

fishery, leading to an estimate of three deaths in 1999 and an average of 0.6 deaths over the 

1999–2003 period. 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. 

Ship-strike deaths and serious injuries averaged 1.6 whales per year in U.S. west coast waters 

between 2002 and 2006. 

Photo credit: NOAA Southwest Fisheries Science Center 

157
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

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 

MMPA. 

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 are ongoing 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. 

158
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) 

Date Listed: June 2, 1970 (35 FR 

18319) 

Legal Status: Endangered 

Recovery Plan Status: A recovery plan 

for the humpback whale was completed 

in November 1991. 

Species Status: Humpback whales live 

in all major ocean basins from equatorial 

to sub-polar latitudes. In the entire 

Southern Hemisphere, humpback whale 

abundance prior to commercial 

exploitation is estimated at 100,000 

whales. Recent abundance estimates south of 60o

S in summer range from 5,900 to 16,800 

whales. 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 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 whether estimates were 

for the entire North Pacific or just the eastern North Pacific. The current abundance estimate for 

the entire North Pacific is between 18,000 and 20,000 whales. 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 (including the Southeast 

Alaska feeding area), and the California/Oregon/Washington stocks in the Pacific Ocean. While 

estimating humpback whale abundance is inherently difficult, best estimates for minimum 

populations are: 549 for the Gulf of Maine stock, 367 for the western North Pacific stock, 3,698 

for the central North Pacific stock (plus an additional 868 that aggregate at the Southeast Alaska 

feeding area), and 1,250 for the California/Oregon/Washington stock. The Gulf of Maine, 

central North Pacific, and California/Oregon/Washington stocks seem to be increasing while 

there is not enough information to accurate access population trends for the western North 

Pacific stock. In 2009 an American Samoa stock assessment will be published for the first time. 

Between 2003 and 2005 92 unique individuals were identified within the American Samoa EEZ. 

Threats and Impacts: One threat to humpback whales is entanglement in commercial fishing 

gear. On occasion, humpback whales are capable of becoming entangled and swimming away 

with parts of fixed fishing gear, which can, in turn, result in subsequent entanglement in 

additional gear. From 2002 through 2006, eight deaths and six 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 

Photo credit: David Matilla, Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary, 

NMFS Permit #807 

159
 
 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

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. Longline gear, crab pots, and other non-fishery-related lines have 

been implicated in the entanglement of humpback whales seen in Hawaii. Between 2002 and 

2006, one humpback whale was killed and nine were seriously injured as a result of interactions 

with pot and/or trap gear off the U.S. West Coast. For the period 2003 through 2007, the 

minimum annual rate of fishing-related mortality and serious injury to the Gulf of Maine 

humpback whale stock averaged 2.8 per year (U.S. waters, 2.4; Canadian waters, 0.4). 

Another threat to humpback whales is mortality or serious injury from ship strikes. From 2003 

through 2007, eight mortalities from the Gulf of Maine stock were attributed to collisions with 

vessels. Between 2001 and 2005, five mortalities were attributed to collisions with vessels in 

southeast Alaska. NOAA has confirmed 50 vessels strikes in Hawaiian waters from 1975 to 

2008. Seven of those 50 ship strikes occurred in 2006, six occurred in 2007, and twelve occurred 

in 2008. 

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 in New England from late spring to 

early fall, particularly within the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary. The central North 

Pacific stock is the focus of a developed whale-watching industry on its wintering grounds in the 

Hawaiian Islands. The feeding aggregation in southeast Alaska is also the focus of a developing 

whale-watching industry that may impact whales in localized areas there. 

Habitat loss and degradation may also impact humpback whales. Shipping channels, fisheries, 

and aquaculture may all occupy or destroy humpback whale aggregation areas. Recreational use 

of marine areas, including resort development and increased boat traffic (thrill craft), may 

displace whales that would normally use an area. In Hawaii, acoustic impacts from vessel 

operation, oceanographic research using active sonar, and military operations are also of 

increasing concern. 

Conservation Actions: 

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 (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 calls 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, 

160
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

scientists, and representatives of the maritime community to assess 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 whalewatching issues. 

•	 NMFS continues to reach out to the commercial whale-watch vessels in New England 

ports about whale-watching guidelines. 

•	 NMFS installs 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. The final report is available online at 

http://swfsc.noaa.gov/prd-splash.aspx. 

•	 The Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary has continued to 

build partnerships to conduct marine mammal surveys, concentrating on humpback 

whales, in the waters surrounding American Samoa. 

•	 The MoNAH (More North Atlantic Humpbacks) project was a cooperative venture to 

estimate the population size of North Atlantic humpback whales that visit the primary 

calving grounds in the West Indies. A genetic marker–based mark recapture estimate 

from this venture should be available by the end of 2009 and be comparable to the 

YoNAH (Year of the North Atlantic Humpback) project of the prior decade. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 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. 

161
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

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). 

162
 
 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

North Atlantic Right Whale (Eubalaena glacialis) 

Date Listed: Right whales were originally 

listed as endangered in December of 1970 (35 

FR 18319). Based on a December 2006 status 

review of the northern right whale, NMFS 

listed the North Pacific and North Atlantic 

right whale populations as separate 

endangered species on March 6, 2008 

(73 FR 12024). 

Legal Status: Endangered 

Recovery Plan Status: A recovery plan for 

the North Atlantic right whale was completed 

in May 2005. 

Species Status: The pre-exploitation distribution of northern right whales in the North Atlantic 

probably included coastal and continental shelf waters in temperate to subarctic latitudes. Preexploitation abundance is unknown but has been estimated at over 1,000 individuals. Current 

distribution and abundance data suggest significant reductions from historic levels. In the 

eastern North Atlantic, the northern right whale population probably numbers in the low tens, 

with little known regarding their distribution and migration pattern. The western north Atlantic 

population had at least 325 individuals in 2003 having grown at a mean rate of 1.8 percent from 

1990–2003. In 2009 at least 39 calves were observed off the coasts of Georgia and Florida, the 

most ever recorded since record keeping and systematic surveys began in the early 1980s. While 

movements of western North Atlantic right whales are extensive, there are six major habitats or 

congregation areas: coastal waters of the southeastern United States; Great South Channel; 

Georges Bank/Gulf of Maine; Cape Cod and Massachusetts bays; the Bay of Fundy; and the 

Scotian Shelf. 

Threats and Impacts: Ship strikes and fishing gear entanglements are the most common 

human-related causes of mortality in the western North Atlantic right whale population. Other 

potential threats are habitat degradation, industrial and ship noise, contaminants, military 

activities, and climate and ecosystem change. Of 16 recorded deaths or serious injuries to North 

Atlantic right whales attributed to human causes during 2003–2007 (in both U.S. and Canadian 

waters), five involved entanglement or fishery interactions and 11 were from collisions with 

vessels. Entanglement records from 1990 through 2006 included 45 confirmed right whale 

entanglements, including right whales caught in weirs, in gillnets, and in trailing line and buoys. 

These numbers are likely underestimates, given unreported or unseen incidences. Any humancaused mortality is problematic for this species because of its low population size. 

Conservation Actions: NMFS has many new and ongoing programs to assuage the threats of 

incidental ship strikes and commercial fishing gear entanglement. Many of these activities (e.g., 

the Boston Traffic Separation Scheme and the Atlantic Large Whale Reduction Plan) are 

intended to protect not only North Atlantic right whales but also endangered humpback and fin 

Photo Credit: NOAA 

163
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

whales and to benefit non-endangered minke whales. NMFS’ Marine Mammal Health and 

Stranding Response Program has continued to respond to stranding and entanglements with its 

partners and administer grants for response and recovery of marine mammals through the John 

H. Prescott Marine Mammal Rescue Assistance Grant Program. 

Reduction of incidental take- Ship Strikes 

•	 In December 2008, NMFS promulgated new rules for all vessels 65 feet or greater to 

limit speed to 10 knots or less in Seasonal Management Areas where whales are known 

to congregate at particular times. NOAA also expects, but does not require, mariners to 

avoid or limit speed to 10 knots or less in Dynamic Management Areas 

(http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/shipstrike/). 

•	 The U.S. submitted two routing proposals to the International Maritime Organization in 

2008. One proposal will amend the north-south leg of the Boston Traffic Separation 

Scheme by shifting traffic 12 degrees and narrowing the traffic lanes by about one half 

mile each. The second proposal is a voluntary seasonal Area To Be Avoided from April 

1st to July 31st in the Great South Channel off of Massachusetts. These proposals will 

move ships away from the greatest densities of whales while minimizing overlap between 

whales and ships. Both of these proposals were endorsed by the International Maritime 

Organization and will be implemented in June, 2009. 

•	 In November 2006, NOAA established recommended shipping routes in key right whale 

aggregation areas within Cape Cod Bay and off three ports in Georgia and Florida. These 

routes are intended to reduce ship transit times in whale habitat while ensuring safe and 

timely shipping. 

•	 The International Maritime Organization has continued a mandatory ship reporting 

system that requires ships 300 tons or larger to report relevant ship information when 

they enter certain waters off New England and calving/nursery areas in waters off 

Georgia and Florida. This reporting prompts an automated return message providing 

information about the vulnerability of right whales to ship strikes and recent right whale 

sighting locations. 

•	 NOAA and other federal and state agencies continued supporting or conducting extensive 

aircraft surveys for right whales. NMFS assembled reports, and “alerts” are disseminated 

to mariners via e-mail, fax, web pages, U.S. Coast Guard Broadcast Notices to Mariners, 

NOAA Weather Radio, NAVTEX, NOAA Weather Buoys, shipping agents, pilots, and 

port authorities. These efforts have been ongoing since the early 1980s. 

•	 NMFS has contributed to many outreach and education projects including: 

continued distribution of placards, brochures, and videos to mariners on ways to reduce 

ship strikes; maintenance of two websites devoted to ship-strike reduction; reprinted 

updates to whale advisory charts; and worked to produce and distribute an interactive CD 

on reducing ship strikes. 

Reduction of incidental take- Gear Entanglement 

•	 NMFS developed and implemented an emergency and final rule to revise the regulations 

implementing the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan by expanding the Southeast 

U.S. Restricted Area and prohibiting gillnet fishing during the right whale calving season 

within the restricted area. 

164
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

•	 As part of the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan NMFS implemented over 25 

Dynamic Area Management zones requiring gear modifications for trap/pot and gillnet 

gear in areas of unexpected aggregations of right whales north of 40°. 

•	 NMFS developed and implemented a broad-based gear modification and completed a full 

Environmental Impact Statement. This new strategy includes weak link and sinking 

groundline requirements; additional gear marking requirements; changes in boundaries; 

seasonal restrictions for gear modifications; and expanded exempted areas. 

•	 NMFS developed a Vertical Line Strategy for the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction 

Team to assist in the development of conservation measures intended to reduce the risk of 

serious injury and mortality of whale interactions with endlines (buoy lines) associated 

with commercial fixed gear. 

•	 NMFS 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. 

•	 NMFS conducted investigations on gear removed from entangled whales. 

•	 NMFS has contributed to many outreach and education projects including: 

conducting dockside outreach meetings throughout the east coast; collaborated with 

fishermen and fishing associations throughout the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic on 

conservation measures and gear research; and provided high level disentanglement 

training for fishermen, the U.S. Coast Guard, and State Marine Patrols. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: Continue to enhance efforts to reduce threats from fishing 

gear entanglement and vessel collisions. 

Recovery Priority Number: 1 

This recovery priority number reflects a high degree of threat based on extremely low population 

numbers, high recovery potential, and potential conflict with economic activities. 

165
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

North Pacific right whale (Eubalaena japonica) 

Date Listed: Right whales were originally listed 

as endangered in December of 1970 (35 FR 

18319). Based on a December 2006 status review 

of the northern right whale, NMFS listed the North 

Pacific and North Atlantic right whale populations 

as separate endangered species on March 6, 2008 

(73 FR 12024). 

Legal Status: Endangered 

Recovery Plan Status: A recovery plan for the 

recently listed species is not currently under 

development. The 1991 recovery plan for Northern 

Right Whales has a section devoted to the North Pacific population. 

Species Status: For North Pacific right whales, the photographic recapture rate and genetic data 

suggest a very small population size. The eastern population of the North Pacific right whale is 

arguably the most endangered stock of whales in the world. Although there are currently no 

estimates of abundance, the extreme rarity of sightings in recent decades suggests the population 

numbers in the tens. Little is known about the distribution, movements, migrations, or habitat 

use of this population. It is thought that North Pacific right whales were once widely distributed 

across the Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea. The current range of this population is probably 

significantly reduced from historic levels. 

Threats and Impacts: Ship collisions and fishing gear entanglements are the most common 

anthropogenic causes of mortality in the western North Atlantic right whale population, but the 

extent of this problem in the North Pacific is unknown. Gillnets were implicated in the death of 

a right whale off the Kamchatka Peninsula (Russia) in 1989. No other incidental takes of right 

whales are known to have occurred in the North Pacific, but entanglement evidence has been 

documented in 1998 aerial photographs of one whale. There is no evidence of entanglement 

scars in the photographic catalog, but, due to incomplete body coverage of most of the animals, it 

is impossible to discount this possibility. 

There has been recent interest in oil and gas exploration and development in the Bering Sea 

North Aleutian Basin (NAB), an area that overlaps with the North Pacific right whale critical 

habitat. Such activity could potentially alter the distribution of North Pacific right whales. 

Conservation Actions: In 2007, the National Marine Mammal Laboratory (NMML) and 

Minerals Management Service (MMS) entered into an Interagency Agreement (IA) for NMML 

to conduct integrated surveys of right whales and other cetaceans (and their habitat) in the Bering 

Sea. This work was prompted by the need for better data to assess the potential impact of oil and 

gas development in the NAB area. 

Photo credit: NOAA National Marine Mammal Lab 

166
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

The overall goal of the IA study is to facilitate development of future oil and gas–related 

mitigation by assessing the distribution, occurrence, and habitat use of North Pacific right whales 

in the southeastern Bering Sea (NAB lease sale area and adjacent waters). The general 

objectives of the study are to estimate seasonal distribution, relative abundance, and movement 

patterns of right whales in and adjacent to the lease sale area and to characterize right whale 

habitat, foraging behavior, health, and prey distribution. The proposed study will have three 

component projects: right whale biology, passive acoustics, and right whale feeding and prey. 

The specific objectives are to: 

1. Assess the distribution of right whales using fixed-winged aircraft and ship-based surveys 

(focused in the lease sale and adjacent areas). 

2. Assess short- and long-term movements of whales through satellite tagging of individuals in 

the lease sale area and Critical Habitat. 

3. Locate whales for tagging, behavioral observations, and habitat studies using ship-based 

passive acoustic methodology. 

4. Conduct acoustic tagging and concurrent oceanographic and zooplankton sampling to 

investigate right whale foraging ecology and assess related habitat characteristics. 

5. Use acoustic monitoring to assess year-round presence and relative abundance of whales in 

the lease sale area and Critical Habitat, as well as to identify potential migration routes from 

the Bering Sea. 

6. Photo-identify and biopsy-sample individual right whales during tagging operations for 

analysis of population structure, genetics, pollutants, and diet. In addition, samples of 

copepods will be taken during oceanographic operations to establish a baseline of existing 

anthropogenic compounds. 

The 2007 portion of this work was more limited in scope due to the short time available for 

organization of the field work; this resulted from the relatively late finalization of the IA between 

the two agencies. The 2008 study included a ship survey, foraging ecology studies, satellite 

tagging, photo-identification, and biopsy sampling. The 2009 study will be a continuation of the 

full survey work. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: For right whales in the North Pacific, the most urgent 

recovery need is better information on the basic distribution and occurrence of right whales in 

the eastern North Pacific, including identification of their wintering areas, which remain 

unknown and to identify threats to the population. Surveys need to be continued, as well as the 

use of autonomous underwater recording devices and satellite-monitored radio tags. Additional 

specific recovery actions for this population will be specified upon completion of a recovery 

plan. 

Recovery Priority Number: 1 

This recovery priority number reflects a high degree of threat based on extremely low population 

numbers, high recovery potential, and potential conflict with economic activities. 

167
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

Sei Whale (Balaenoptera borealis) 

Date Listed: June 2, 1970 (35 FR 18319) 

Legal Status: Endangered 

Recovery Plan Status: A draft recovery plan 

is under development. 

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. Current estimates for sei whale abundance in the southern oceans 

range from 9,718 to 12,000 whales. In the North Pacific, the pre-exploitation population estimate 

for sei whales is 42,000 and the most current population estimate for sei whales in the entire 

North Pacific (from 1977) is 9,110. The 2008 Pacific Stock Assessment report for the 

California/Oregon/Washington stock indicates that the population is quite small (46 whales 

estimated based on surveys conducted in 2001 and 2005). One ship-strike mortality was 

recorded in 2003 in Washington State. 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. This stock has an estimated minimum population of 128 whales. In the North 

Pacific, there are two stocks of sei whales in U.S. waters—the eastern North Pacific stock and 

the California/Oregon/Washington stock. Little is known about the size of the eastern North 

Pacific stock in Alaskan waters. 

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 2002–2006 show a 

minimum annual rate of human-caused mortality and serious injury at 0.6 per year. The first 

ship-strike record between 2002 and 2006 was an 11-meter male discovered in February 2003 

outside of Norfolk Naval Base in Virginia. Another ship-strike mortality was reported in April 

2006 when a fresh sei whale carcass was brought in to Baltimore on the bow of a ship. A fishery 

entanglement mortality was discovered on Jeffreys Ledge in southern Maine in September 2006. 

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 California 

and Mexico. There is also a potential for sei whales in the North Pacific to be killed or seriously 

injured by ship strikes. 

Photo credit: NOAA 

168
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

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 (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. 

169
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

Sperm Whale (Physeter macrocephalus) 

Date Listed: June 2, 1970 (35 FR 18319) 

Legal Status: Endangered 

Recovery Plan Status: A recovery plan was 

drafted in 2006 (71 FR 38385) and is expected to be 

finalized in 2009.
 

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, northern Gulf of Mexico stock, Hawaiian 

stock, California/Oregon/Washington stock, and North Pacific stock. 

The geographic distribution of the North Atlantic stock appears to have a distinct seasonal cycle, 

ranging from being concentrated off Cape Hatteras (in winter), to being widespread throughout 

the central portion of the mid-Atlantic bight up to Georges Bank (in spring and summer), to 

being concentrated on the continental shelf south of New England and along the continental shelf 

edge into the mid-Atlantic bight (in fall). The minimum population estimate for the western 

North Atlantic sperm whale stock is 3,539 individuals. 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. 

In the waters around Hawaii, sounds of sperm whales have been recorded throughout the year off 

Oahu. In addition to the main Hawaiian Islands, sperm whales have also been sighted around 

several of the Northwest Hawaiian Islands. The most up–to-date minimum population estimate 

for this stock is 5,531. No data are available on the current population trend for this stock. 

The geographic distribution of the California/Oregon/Washington stock of sperm whales varies 

seasonally. Sperm whales are found year-round in California waters, but peak in abundance 

from April through mid-June and from the end of August to mid-November. Off Washington 

and Oregon, whales from this stock are present in every season except winter. The current 

minimum population estimate for this stock is approximately 2,326 whales. Sperm whale 

abundance appears to have been rather variable off California and does not show any apparent 

trend at this time. 

Photo credit: NOAA 

170
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

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 40o

N 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 from 1800 to the 1980s took at least 436,000 

sperm whales from the entire North Pacific Ocean. Sperm whales in the North Pacific stock 

found in Alaskan waters (Gulf of Alaska, Bering Sea, and Aleutian Islands). The number and 

population trend of sperm whales of the North Pacific occurring within Alaskan waters is 

unknown. 

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 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. 

Conservation Actions: 

•	 Monitoring the status of the California/Oregon/Washington stock of sperm whales via 

shipboard surveys, which are conducted every 3 years (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). 

171
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

•	 Placing of observers on all seismic vessels operating in the Gulf of Mexico to monitor for 

sperm whales, implement mitigation measures, and collect data. 

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. 

172
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

Killer Whale (Orcinus orca) – Southern Resident DPS 

Date Listed: November 18, 2005 (70 FR 

69903) 

Legal Status: Endangered 

Recovery Plan Status: A final recovery plan 

for the Southern Resident killer whales was 

completed in January 2008. 

Species Status: In the 1980s and early 1990s, 

the Southern Resident population increased 

following reductions due to live captures for 

public display in the 1960s and 1970s. From 

1996–2001, the population declined by almost 20 percent, prompting a petition to list them under 

the ESA. The population increased for several years, reaching 90 whales in 2006, but has 

declined to 85 whales as of the 2008 census. 

Threats and Impacts: Threats identified for Southern Resident killer whales include limited 

prey availability, pollution/contaminants, vessel effects, and sound. Concerns regarding the 

demographics of the population include the small number of reproductive-age males, presence of 

reproductive-age females that are not having calves, and potential for inbreeding. In addition, the 

small population size and social structure make Southern Resident killer whales susceptible to 

catastrophic 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 2006–2008, research programs supported include projects on 

population monitoring, winter distribution, prey associations and diet, vessel interactions, 

contaminant levels, health assessments, taxonomy and genetics, improving research techniques 

and technology, research planning, and coordination. In addition to research projects, continuing 

implementation of conservation actions include: 

•	 Coordination with salmon recovery programs (see Pacific Salmon Recovery). 

•	 Participation to incorporate killer whale recovery into Puget Sound Partnership Action 

Agenda for cleaning up, restoring, and protecting Puget Sound by 2020. 

•	 Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding protective regulations for killer 

whales in the Northwest Region published March 22, 2007 (72 FR 13464). 

•	 Increased on-water stewardship and vessel monitoring, including reports on vessel 

activities in the vicinity of whales. 

•	 Increased enforcement presence on the water in coordination with Washington State law 

prohibiting approach within 100 yards of Southern Resident killer whales (HB 2514). 

•	 Oil Spill Response Plan developed and submitted for inclusion as an appendix to the 

Northwest Area Contingency Plan. 

•	 Mitigation of in-water construction and other activities through section 7 consultations 

under the ESA. 

Photo credit: Sean Ledwin 

173
 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

•	 Implemented education and outreach programs, including continued promotion of the 

“Be Whale Wise” campaign, partnering with the Seattle Aquarium and The Whale 

Museum, and support of “Killer Whale Tales” and “Saving Springer” classroom 

programs. 

•	 Increased capability to respond to killer whale strandings. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: There is considerable uncertainty regarding which threats 

may be responsible for the decline in the population or which is the most important factor to 

address for recovery. The recovery plan lays out an adaptive management approach and a 

recovery strategy that addresses each of the potential threats based on the best available science. 

The recovery program links management actions to an active research program to fill data gaps 

and incorporates monitoring to assess effectiveness. Feedback from research and monitoring will 

provide the information necessary to refine ongoing recovery actions and develop and prioritize 

new actions. Needed recovery actions include: 

•	 Prey availability: Support salmon restoration efforts in the region including habitat, 

harvest and hatchery management considerations, and continued use of existing NMFS 

authorities to ensure an adequate prey base. 

•	 Pollution/contamination: Clean up existing contaminated sites, minimize continuing 

inputs of contaminants harmful to killer whales, and monitor emerging contaminants. 

•	 Vessel effects: Continue with evaluation and improvement of guidelines for vessel 

activity near Southern Resident killer whales and evaluate the need for regulations or 

protected areas. 

•	 Acoustic effects: Continue agency coordination and use of existing mechanisms to 

minimize potential impacts on the whales from anthropogenic sound. 

•	 Oil spills: Prevent oil spills and improve response preparation to minimize effects on 

Southern Resident killer whales and their habitat in the event of a spill. 

•	 Education and outreach: Enhance public awareness, educate the public on how they can 

help conserve killer whales, and improve reporting of southern resident killer whale 

sightings and strandings. 

•	 Respond to sick, stranded, and injured killer whales: Improve responses to live and dead 

killer whales to implement rescues, conduct health assessments, and determine causes of 

death to learn more about threats and guide overall conservation efforts. 

•	 Transboundary and interagency coordination: Coordinate monitoring, research, 

enforcement, and complementary recovery planning with Canadian agencies and U.S. 

federal and state partners. 

•	 Research and monitoring: Conduct research to facilitate and enhance conservation 

efforts. Continue the annual census to monitor trends in the population, identify 

individual animals, and track demographic parameters. 

Recovery Priority Number: 3 

This recovery priority number is based on a high magnitude of threat due to low population 

numbers and continuing threats to recovery, a moderate recovery potential based on uncertainty 

regarding most important threats, and presence of conflict, because regulatory actions taken 

could involve restrictions on commercial fishing, contaminant discharge, and vessels. 

174
 
 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2006–2008 

Appendix A. NMFS Recovery Priority Number Guidelines 

175
 
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