Biennial Report to Congress 

on the Recovery Program for Threatened 

and Endangered Species

October 1, 2002 – September 30, 2004 

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 2002–2004 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hawksbill Sea Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata)....................................................................... 12 

Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle (Lepidochelys kempii) .................................................................... 14 

Leatherback Sea Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) ..................................................................... 16 

Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Caretta caretta).................................................................................. 20 

Olive Ridley Sea Turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea) ..................................................................... 24 

PACIFIC SALMON RECOVERY............................................................................................... 26 

Overview for 2002–2004 .......................................................................................................... 26 

Salmon Recovery in the Northwest .......................................................................................... 34 

Lower Columbia River Chinook ESU (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)................................... 34 

Puget Sound Chinook ESU (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) ................................................... 37 

Snake River Fall-run Chinook ESU (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) ...................................... 40 

Snake River Spring/Summer-run Chinook ESU (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)................... 42 

Upper Columbia River Spring-run Chinook ESU (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)................. 44 

Upper Willamette River Chinook ESU (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)................................. 46 

Columbia River Chum ESU (Oncorhynchus keta)............................................................... 48 

Hood Canal Summer-run Chum ESU (Oncorhynchus keta) ................................................ 50 

Oregon Coast Coho ESU (Oncorhynchus kisutch)............................................................... 52 

Ozette Lake Sockeye ESU (Oncorhynchus nerka)............................................................... 54 

Snake River Sockeye ESU (Oncorhynchus nerka)............................................................... 56 

Lower Columbia River Steelhead ESU (Oncorhynchus mykiss).......................................... 58 

Middle Columbia River Steelhead ESU (Oncorhynchus mykiss)......................................... 61 

Snake River Basin Steelhead ESU (Oncorhynchus mykiss)................................................. 63 

Upper Columbia River Steelhead ESU (Oncorhynchus mykiss) .......................................... 65 

Upper Willamette River Steelhead ESU (Oncorhynchus mykiss) ........................................ 67 

Salmon Recovery Overlapping the Northwest and Southwest................................................. 69 

Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast Coho ESU (Oncorhynchus kisutch)............... 69 

Salmon Recovery in the Southwest .......................................................................................... 77 

Northern California Steelhead ESU (Oncorhynchus mykiss) ............................................... 77 

California Central Valley Steelhead ESU (Oncorhynchus mykiss) ...................................... 83 

Central California Coast Steelhead ESU (Oncorhynchus mykiss)........................................ 86 

South-Central California Steelhead ESU (Oncorhynchus mykiss) ....................................... 92 

Southern California Steelhead ESU (Oncorhynchus mykiss) ............................................... 95 

Central California Coast Coho Salmon ESU (Oncorhynchus kisutch)................................. 98 

California Coast Chinook ESU (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) ........................................... 104 

Sacramento River Winter-run Chinook Salmon ESU (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)......... 111 

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

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

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

i 
 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

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

Gulf Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi)....................................................................... 122 

Shortnose Sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum)........................................................................ 125 

Smalltooth Sawfish (Pristis pectinata) – U.S. DPS................................................................ 128 

PLANT RECOVERY ................................................................................................................. 130 

Johnson’s Seagrass (Halophila johnsonii).............................................................................. 130 

INVERTEBRATE RECOVERY................................................................................................ 131 

White Abalone (Haliotis sorenseni) ....................................................................................... 131 

MARINE MAMMAL RECOVERY .......................................................................................... 134 

Seals and Sea Lions ................................................................................................................ 134 

Caribbean Monk Seal (Monachus tropicalis)..................................................................... 134 

Guadalupe Fur Seal (Arctocephalus townsendi)................................................................. 135 

Hawaiian Monk Seal (Monachus schauinslandi) ............................................................... 137 

Steller Sea Lion (Eumetopias jubatus) – Eastern and Western DPSs ................................ 141 

Whales..................................................................................................................................... 143 

Blue Whale (Balaenoptera musculus) ................................................................................ 143 

Bowhead Whale (Balaena mysticetus) ............................................................................... 145 

Fin Whale (Balaenoptera physalus) ................................................................................... 147 

Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae).................................................................... 150 

Northern Right Whale (Eubalaena glacialis)..................................................................... 156 

Sei Whale (Balaenoptera borealis) .................................................................................... 161 

Sperm Whale (Physeter macrocephalus)............................................................................ 163 

APPENDIX A. Pacific Salmon Supplemental Information ...................................................... A-1 

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

Cover photo credits: 

Sea turtle image courtesy of Ursula Keuper-Bennett 

Sockeye salmon and Steller sea lion images courtesy of NOAA 

ii 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

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 ............................... 20 

Table 3. Status and trends of olive ridley nesting subpopulations........................................... 24 

Table 4. Summary of NMFS' recovery planning progress by recovery planning domain 

 for ESA-listed Pacific Salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) ........................................... 32 

Table 5. Current and proposed ESA listing status of 27 Pacific salmon ESUs....................... 33 

Table 6. Estimated spawning population sizes for known Gulf sturgeon spawning rivers ... 122 

Table 7. Estimated 2002 abundance of Hawaiian monk seal populations............................. 137
 

Table A-1. Summary of Status and Trends for 27 ESUs of Pacific Salmon (Oncorhynchus

 spp.) on the West Coast .................................................................................... A-2 

LIST OF FIGURES 

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

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

Figure 2. Abundance and trend of loggerhead sea turtle nests on Yakushima Island, Japan .. 20 

Figure 3. Pacific salmon recovery domains............................................................................. 31 

Figure 4. California commercial catch (weight in shell) of white abalone reported in 

 California Department of Fish and Game bulletins for the period 1955–1997 . 131 

Figure A-1. Distribution of Pacific Salmon ESUs..................................................................... A-5 

iii 
 

 

 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

OVERVIEW 

The primary purpose of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA) 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 eighth 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, 2002, through September 30, 2004. 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 2 years covered in this report, NMFS had jurisdiction 

over 52 domestic species∗

 of salmon, sturgeon, sawfish, sea grass, mollusks, sea turtles, and 

marine mammals, and eight foreign species, for a total of 60 species. The 52 species addressed in 

this report include the smalltooth sawfish (Pristis pectinata), which was added to the list of 

threatened and endangered species on April 1, 2003; and the Oregon Coast coho (Oncorhynchus 

kisutch), whose ESA protection was set aside by a court ruling in February 2004 and was 

proposed for relisting in June 2004. 

Of our 52 domestic listed species, 16 currently have recovery plans. Six species’ recovery plans 

are in the process of being updated: Hawaiian monk seal; eastern and western distinct population 

segments of Steller sea lions; the North Atlantic right whale; and loggerhead and Kemp’s ridley 

turtles (see Table 1). In June and August of 2004, respectively, the draft Atlantic salmon and 

draft North Atlantic right whale recovery plans were completed and published for public 

comment; these will be finalized in 2005. Thirty-two recovery plans are currently being drafted, 

including those for 26 Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) of Pacific salmon. In addition to 

the numerous Pacific salmon technical recovery teams and sub-basin recovery teams (see Pacific 

Salmon Overview), there are active recovery teams for the white abalone, smalltooth sawfish, 

Kemp’s ridley and loggerhead turtles, Hawaiian monk seal, and Steller sea lion. Additionally, 

two active take reduction teams, formed in accordance with Marine Mammal Protection Act, 

assist in the recovery of listed species: the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team and 

Pacific Offshore Cetacean Take Reduction Team. 

∗

 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. 

1 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

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 new Interim 

Recovery Planning Guidance completed in October 2004, which is now being field-tested in 

regional and field offices (see http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/PR3/recover_planning.html). 

In addition to recovery planning, recovery implementation was active for all NMFS listed 

species during the biennium covered in this report, although the absence of dedicated funding in 

2004 affected our ability to address recovery needs for shortnose sturgeon, white abalone, and 

Johnson’s seagrass. Among ongoing conservation and research activities, two efforts are 

especially worth noting: (1) the Atlantic/Gulf of Mexico Sea Turtle Strategy (Sea Turtle 

Strategy) and (2) efforts to recover North Atlantic right whales, one of our most severely 

endangered species. 

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

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

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

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

have largely neglected sea turtle bycatch in state and recreational fisheries. The Sea Turtle 

Strategy takes a comprehensive look at fisheries, which will result in bycatch reduction measures 

across jurisdictional boundaries and fisheries for gear types having the greatest impact on sea 

turtle populations. The Sea Turtle Strategy should result in greater conservation of turtles and 

other bycatch species, and allow greater predictability of required measures for fishers. 

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

serious injury and death due to entanglement in commercial fishing gear (primarily through 

fishing gear modifications and restrictions to reduce the likelihood of entanglement) are handled 

under the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan. New regulations are currently being 

instituted through rulemaking, with possible additional regulations under consideration. Because 

right whale deaths also result from collisions with large ships, NMFS has developed a Right 

Whale Ship Strike Reduction Strategy. This strategy is being implemented through mariner 

education and outreach programs, ESA section 7 consultations, and consideration of 

modifications to ships’ operations to reduce ship strikes. On June 1, 2004, NMFS published an 

Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and, in July and August of 2004, held five public 

meetings in Boston, Massachusetts; Jersey City, New Jersey; Wilmington, North Carolina; 

Jacksonville, Florida; and Silver Spring, Maryland, to present the strategy and solicit information 

2 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

on the development and implementation of the proposed new operational measures. A draft 

Right Whale Ship Strike Reduction Strategy is anticipated in 2005. 

Between October 1, 2002, and September 30, 2004, of the 52 domestic endangered or threatened 

species listed under the ESA, 25 (48%) were stabilized or improving; 12 (23%) were known to 

be declining; and 15 (29%) were unknown or mixed in their status. The numbers are 

encouraging, especially given the large number of highly imperiled species listed in the past 

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

Recovery plans are available online at 

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

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

Endangered Species Division - Recovery Plans 

Office of Protected Resources - F/PR3 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

1315 East-West Highway 

Silver Spring, MD 20910-3226 

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

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

3 
Species/ESU/DPS1 Date Listed / Reclassified ESA Status Population/ESU Trend Recovery Priority Number2

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report 

ESA-LISTED SPECIES UNDER NMFS’ JURISDICTION Table 1. ESA-listed species under NMFS’ jurisdiction including listing status, trends, priority numbers, and recove

S

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

7/28/1978 Endangered Increasing (FL); 

Declining (Mexico) 

5 

-Rangewide 7/28/1978 Threatened Declining 5 CoHawksbill sea turtle 6/2/1970 Endangered Declining 1 Co

Kemp’s Ridley sea turtle 12/2/1970 Endangered Increasing 5 C

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

Mixed (Atlantic) 

1 Co

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

Stable (Atlantic) 

5 Co

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

7/28/1978 Endangered Increasing 5 

-Rangewide 7/28/1978 Threatened Mixed 5 

PACIFIC SALMON Northwest Region -Lower Columbia River Chinook ESU 3/24/1999 Threatened Stable 1 

-Puget Sound Chinook ESU 3/24/1999 Threatened Stable 1 -Snake River Fall-run Chinook ESU 4/22/1992 Threatened Increasing 1 -Snake River Spring/Summer-run Chinook ESU 

4/22/1992 Threatened Increasing 1 

4 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report 

-Upper Columbia River, Spring Run Chinook ESU 

3/24/1999 Endangered Increasing 1 

-Upper Willamette River Chinook ESU 

3/24/1999 Threatened Stable 1 

-Columbia River chum ESU 3/25/1999 Threatened Increasing 1 

-Hood Canal Summer-run chum ESU 3/25/1999 Threatened Increasing 1 

-Oregon Coast coho ESU 8/10/19983; 6/14/2004 Proposed 

Threatened3 Increasing 1 

-Ozette Lake sockeye ESU 3/25/1999 Threatened Unknown 1 -Snake River sockeye ESU 11/20/1991 Endangered Increasing 1 -Lower Columbia River steelhead ESU 

3/19/1998 Threatened Increasing 1 

-Middle Columbia River steelhead ESU 

3/25/1999 Threatened Increasing 1 

-Snake River Basin steelhead ESU 8/18/1997 Threatened Stable 1 

-Upper Columbia River steelhead ESU 

8/18/1997 Endangered Increasing 1 

-Upper Willamette River steelhead ESU 

3/25/1999 Threatened Increasing 1 

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

5/6/1997 Threatened Mixed 1 

Southwest Region -Northern California steelhead ESU 6/7/2000 Threatened Declining 7 -California Central Valley steelhead ESU 

3/19/1998 Threatened Declining 3 

-Central California Coast steelhead ESU 

8/18/1997 Threatened Declining 3 

-South-Central California steelhead ESU 

8/18/1997 Threatened Unknown 3 

-Southern California steelhead ESU 8/18/1997; 

05/01/20024 Endangered Unknown; likely declining 3 

-Central California Coast coho ESU 10/31/1996 Threatened Declining 1 

-California Coast Chinook ESU 9/16/1999 Threatened Declining 3 

-Sacramento River Winter-run Chinook ESU 

8/4/1989; 11/5/1990; 

1/4/19945 Endangered Increasing 1 D

-Central Valley California Spring-run Chinook ESU 

9/16/1999 Threatened Increasing 3 

5 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report 

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

NON-SALMONID FISH Gulf sturgeon 9/30/1991 Threatened Stable 8 Shortnose sturgeon 3/11/1967 Endangered Mixed 5 

Smalltooth sawfish - U.S. DPS 4/1/2003 Endangered Unknown6 7 

PLANTS Johnson's seagrass 9/14/1998 Threatened Unknown6 7 

INVERTEBRATES White abalone 5/29/2001 Endangered Declining 2 

SEALS AND SEA LIONS Caribbean monk seal 3/11/1967 Endangered Presumed Extinct 12 

Guadalupe fur seal 12/16/1985 Threatened Increasing 10 

Hawaiian monk seal 11/23/1976 Endangered Declining 1 C

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

11/26/1990; 5/5/977 

Threatened Increasing 10 C

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

11/26/1990; 5/5/977 Endangered Declining 7 C

WHALES Blue whale 6/2/1970 Endangered Increasing 7 Bowhead whale 6/2/1970 Endangered Increasing 9 

Fin whale 6/2/1970 Endangered Unknown 7 D

Humpback whale 6/2/1970 Endangered Increasing 3 Northern right whale8 6/2/1970 Endangered Unknown 1 

Sei whale 6/2/1970 Endangered Unknown 3 D

Sperm whale 6/2/1970 Endangered Unknown 7 

6 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report 

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

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

3 This ESU was listed as threatened on 8/10/1998; court decision set aside ESA protections on 2/24/2004. NMFS proposed relisting as 

the current status of this ESU is proposed threatened. The ESU is included in this table because during the timeframe covered by thi

listed as threatened under the ESA. 

4 This ESU was first listed on 8/18/1997; the southern range extension to the U.S.-Mexico border was added to the listing for this ESU 

5/1/2002. 

5 This ESU was first emergency-listed as threatened on 8/4/1989, then officially listed as threatened on 11/5/1990, then reclassified as e6 Population trends for these species/DPS are currently unknown due to the impact of Hurricane Charley (2004). Prior to this event, the 

population was considered to be stable. 

7 This species was first listed as threatened via a 240-day emergency rule on 4/10/1990, then officially listed as threatened in a final rul

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

DPS as endangered. 

8 During the timeframe for this report (2002–2004), two separate endangered species of right whale in the Northern Hemisphere were li

right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) and the North Pacific right whale (Eubalaena japonica). In January 2005, NMFS published a fina

distinction, thereby reverting to the previously used taxonomy of one endangered species – the northern right whale (Eubalaena glac

Pacific and North Atlantic populations. This report, therefore, uses the taxonomy at time of publication (northern right whale), notinmay be reinstated in the future pending an upcoming status review and following ESA listing procedures. 

7 
 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

SEA TURTLE RECOVERY 

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

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

jurisdiction. Although both agencies work together on several marine turtle recovery activities, 

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

recovery actions in the terrestrial environment (i.e., nesting beaches). Six species of sea turtles 

are targeted by NMFS recovery activities: green, leatherback, loggerhead, hawksbill, olive 

ridley, and Kemp’s ridley. Within these species, two regionally important populations are listed 

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

Mexico (East Pacific green turtle) and (2) the olive ridley turtle breeding populations on the 

Pacific Coast of Mexico. 

Green Sea Turtle (Chelonia mydas) 

Date Listed: July 28, 1978 

Legal Status: 

Endangered (breeding colony populations in Florida and Pacific coast of Mexico) 

Threatened (rangewide except where listed as endangered) 

Recovery Plan Status: 

Pacific: Two final recovery plans were approved on January 12, 1998: one for the East Pacific 

green turtle population and one for all other Pacific breeding populations. 

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

Species Status: 

An assessment of the annual number of nesting females from major nesting areas (and other 

beaches in the Pacific Ocean, Asian Seas, Indian Ocean, Mediterranean Sea, and Atlantic Ocean 

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

generations1. In the United States, the nesting populations in Hawaii (Figure 1) and Florida1 

show a positive trend since establishment of index beaches in 1989. Age at sexual maturity is 

estimated to be between 20 and 50 

Estimated number of green turtles nesting at East Island, 

French Frigate Shoals 

0 

100 

200 

300 

400 

500 

600 

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 

Year 

Estimated nesters

years. Thus, caution is warranted 

when interpreting nesting trend data 

collected for less than 15 years. 

Figure 1. Estimated number of female 

green turtles nesting at East Island, 

French Frigate Shoals, Hawaiian 

Archipelago, 1973–2002 

1

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

for the IUCN Red List Programme. 

8 
 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

Threats and Impacts: 

Threats and impacts found in the marine environment affecting both the threatened rangewide 

populations and the endangered breeding population of green turtles include the following: 

• Harvest of immature turtles and adults – Direct harvest of East Pacific green turtles has 

been documented in Mexico and Peru. Some known direct harvest of immature turtles 

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

Japan, Solomon Islands, and the Philippines. Direct harvest very likely occurs in many 

other areas within the range of the green turtle, especially in the western Pacific (e.g., 

Indonesia/Malaysia). 

• Incidental capture in commercial and artisanal fisheries – Some fisheries known to 

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

seine, pound net, pot gear, and trawl fisheries. 

• Incidental capture in “ghost” fishing gear 

• Parasites and diseases (e.g., tuberculosis, pneumonia, coccidiosis, and 

fibropapillomatosis) 

• Pollution (e.g., ingestion of marine debris, chemical pollution in algae/seagrass feeding 

pastures, light pollution that disorients nesting females and emergent hatchlings, and oil 

pollution) 

• Boating activities that may result in direct injury or death through collisions or propeller 

wounds, or that may contribute to habitat degradation through anchoring and propeller 

scarring 

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

• Hopper dredging entrainment and entrapment and dredging impacts to turtle habitat 

• 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. 

• Potential acoustical disturbance – Potential disturbance from sonar and seismic surveys is 

poorly understood and may impact turtles. 

• Navy exercises – There is minimal information on various short-term and longer-term 

Navy exercises that may impact the migratory and foraging behavior of turtles and their 

habitats. 

Conservation Actions: 

Conservation actions conducted in 2002–2004 for recovery of the green turtle include the 

following: 

Pacific/Indian Ocean: 

• Identified stock structure and conducted population identification of fisheries bycatch 

using DNA analysis, flipper tagging, and satellite telemetry 

• Identified habitat requirements using stable isotope analysis 

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

fibropapillomatosis 

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

Network (STSSN), including genetic sampling and analysis of age classes 

• Supported marine debris cleanup efforts around the Hawaiian Islands 

9 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

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

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

throughout Hawaiian archipelago 

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

• Supported capacity building of the Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources and 

nesting beach and in-water monitoring in American Samoa 

• Conducted in-water monitoring in Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands 

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

and Wildlife Resources, and its efforts to survey beaches for nesting activity 

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

its project to establish a monitoring system and to conduct baseline studies of turtles and 

their habitats in Palau 

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

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

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

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

Marine Resources Authority 

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

Ocean Resources Management Authority and the tuna longline industry to provide 

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

future management activities 

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

Galapagos Islands, Chile, Peru, and the Pacific Coast of Mexico 

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

longline fishery on green turtles 

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

Islands, and Costa Rica 

• Supported aerial surveys of foraging and nesting areas in Mexico 

• Supported Ecuador population assessment 

• Supported education and collaborative work with Mexico to reduce take 

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

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

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

comprehensive framework for the conservation and protection of sea turtles and their 

habitats in the Indo-Pacific region 

Atlantic Ocean: 

• Identified stock structure and conducted population identification of fisheries bycatch 

using DNA analysis, flipper tagging, and satellite telemetry 

• Identified habitat requirements using stable isotope analysis 

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

fibropapillomatosis 

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

Network (STSSN), including genetic sampling and analysis of age classes 

10 
 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

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

address sea turtle entanglement in pot and other fishing gear 

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

scallop dredges, pound net leaders, and whelk pots 

• Developed and implemented turtle excluder devices (TEDs) large enough to release 

leatherback sea turtles, as well as large green and loggerhead sea turtles 

• Prohibited the use of large mesh gillnets in Pamlico Sound, North Carolina, during the 

fall months when sea turtles are migrating through the sound 

• Prohibited the use of large mesh gillnets in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of the 

mid-Atlantic during times when sea turtles are most likely to interact with this gear 

• Prohibited the use of all pound net leaders in a defined area of the Virginia waters of the 

Chesapeake Bay from May 6 through July 15 each year – Outside this area, the 

prohibition includes leaders with ≥12 inches of stretched mesh and leaders with stringers 

from May 6 to July 15 each year. 

• Supported the Maryland Tagging/Health Assessment Study – Personnel from the Fish 

and Wildlife Health Program weighed, measured, biopsied, tagged, and released sea 

turtles incidentally captured in pound nets in Chesapeake Bay. Appropriation for 

cooperative conservation and recovery efforts with states was the source of funding for 

this project. 

• Supported a health assessment study on sea turtles caught in New York pound nets – 

Appropriation for cooperative conservation and recovery efforts with states was the 

source of funding for this project. 

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

Turtles 

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

turtle abundance 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

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

• Develop and implement solutions to reduce sea turtle interactions with fisheries. 

• Support nations in establishing research and monitoring programs. 

• 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. 

• Characterize the nesting abundance at the Revillagigedos rookery. 

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

other gear modifications and fishing practices to reduce turtle bycatch. 

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

turtle interactions in pelagic and coastal fisheries. 

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

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

Recovery Priority Number: 

5 (Breeding Colony Populations in Florida and Pacific coast of Mexico); 5 (Rangewide)
 

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

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

activities. 

11 
 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

Hawksbill Sea Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) 

Date Listed: June 2, 1970 

Legal Status: Endangered 

Recovery Plan Status: 

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

Atlantic: A final recovery plan was approved on December 15, 1993. 

Species Status: 

The hawksbill sea turtle is severely depleted throughout its range as a result of decades of 

intensive harvest. Today, most nesting populations continue to decline, a few appear stable 

(Buck Island Reef National Monument, St. Croix, USVI), and a few have begun to improve 

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

Major causes of the continued decline of the hawksbill turtle include commercial exploitation 

driven by the continuing demand for hawksbill shell (bekko), directed harvest of eggs, poaching 

of adult and immature turtles for meat, and destruction and degradation of coral reef habitats 

providing critically important foraging areas. 

Threats and Impacts: 

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

following: 

• Direct take of turtles 

• Increased human presence 

• Dredging – Dredging can result in habitat destruction by disrupting nesting or foraging 

grounds; hopper dredges can also injure or kill turtles caught in dragheads. 

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

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

• Incidental capture in commercial and recreational fishing gear including driftnets, seines, 

trawls, longlines, and gillnets 

• Boat collisions – In areas where recreational boating and ship traffic is intense, propeller 

and collision injuries may occur. 

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

respiration, skin, blood chemistry and salt gland functions are affected. 

• Underwater explosions (e.g., gas and oil structure removal and the use of explosives) – 

Such explosions can kill or injure turtles, and may destroy or damage habitat. 

• Pesticides, heavy metals, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) – These materials and 

substances have been detected in turtles and eggs, but their effect is unknown. 

• Destruction of habitat – Hawksbill sea turtles depend on coral reefs for shelter and food; 

therefore, destruction of reefs from a variety of causes may impact hawksbill sea turtles. 

• Entrainment in coastal power plants drawing their cooling water from nearshore and 

estuarine waters – Because entrainment can cause mortality, some plants have put in 

place measures to reduce the risk to sea turtles. 

• Entanglement in “ghost” fishing gear 

12 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

Conservation Actions: 

Conservation actions conducted in 2002–2004 for recovery of the hawksbill turtle include the 

following: 

• Supported nesting beach monitoring in the main Hawaiian Islands 

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

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

Hawaiian Islands 

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

and Wildlife Resources, and its program to survey beaches for nesting activity 

• Convened the Second Western Pacific Sea Turtle Cooperative Research and Management 

Workshop with the Western Pacific Fisheries Management Council, May 17-18, 2004, to 

focus on the southwest Pacific hawksbill stock 

• Supported capacity building of the Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources and 

nesting beach and in-water monitoring in American Samoa 

• Conducted in-water monitoring in Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands 

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

its project to establish a monitoring system and conduct baseline studies of turtles and 

their habitats in Palau 

• 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 

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

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

Marine Resources Authority 

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 education and law 

enforcement actions. 

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

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

and in-water censuses. 

• Identify stock home ranges using DNA analysis. 

• Support conservation and biologically viable management of hawksbill populations in 

countries that share U.S. hawksbill stocks. 

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

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

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

in the Hawaiian population. 

Recovery Priority Number: 1 

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

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

activities. 

13 
 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle (Lepidochelys kempii) 

Date Listed: December 2, 1970 

Legal Status: Endangered 

Recovery Plan Status: 

A final recovery plan for the Kemp’s ridley turtle was approved on August 21, 1992. A revised 

plan is currently under development. 

Species Status: 

The only major nesting site for Kemp’s ridley turtles is a single stretch of beach near Rancho 

Nuevo, Tamaulipas, Mexico. Although still much decreased in number from the mid-20th 

century, the number of nests at Rancho Nuevo and nearby beaches from 1985-1999 increased at 

a mean rate of 11.3 percent per year. Current totals exceed 3,000 nests per year. Kemp’s ridley 

turtles mature at an earlier age than other species, thus “lag effects” are possible as a result of 

unknown impacts to the non-breeding life stages, and are likely seen in the increasing nesting 

trend beginning in 1985. There is cautious optimism that the Kemp’s ridley population is 

increasing. 

Threats and Impacts: 

Threats and impacts found in the marine environment affecting Kemp’s ridley turtles include the 

following: 

• Dredging – Dredging can result in habitat destruction by disrupting nesting or foraging 

grounds; hopper dredges can also kill turtles caught in dragheads. 

• Marine debris – Marine debris constitutes a threat to Kemp’s ridley turtles of all ages 

through ingestion and entanglement. 

• Interactions with commercial and recreational fishing gear, including bottom and midwater trawl gear, purse seines, pound nets, pots, hook and line, and gillnets 

• Boat propeller and collision injuries – Such injuries may occur in areas where 

recreational boating and ship traffic is intense; the magnitude of ship strikes is unknown. 

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

skin, blood chemistry and salt gland functions are affected. 

• Underwater explosions (e.g., gas and oil structure removal and testing using explosives) – 

Such explosions can kill or injure turtles, and may destroy or damage habitat. 

• Pesticides, heavy metals, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) – These materials and 

substances have been detected in turtles and eggs, but their effect is unknown. 

• Marina and dock development – Marina and dock development can cause foraging 

habitat to be destroyed or damaged; it can also lead to increased boat traffic, thus 

increasing the risk of turtle/vessel collisions. 

• Entrainment in coastal power plants drawing their cooling water from nearshore and 

estuarine waters – Because entrainment can cause mortality, some plants have put in 

place measures to reduce the risk to sea turtles. 

• Entanglement in “ghost” fishing gear – Turtles get caught in discarded fishing gear; the 

number of Kemp’s ridley turtles affected is unknown, but is potentially significant. 

14 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

Conservation Actions: 

Conservation actions conducted in 2002–2004 for recovery of the Kemp’s ridley turtle include 

the following: 

• Continued vital work through the Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network (STSSN) 

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

• Developed a Sea Turtle Disentanglement Network in the Northeast Region 

• Prohibited the use of all pound net leaders in a defined area of the Virginia waters of the 

Chesapeake Bay from May 6 through July 15 each year – Outside this area, the 

prohibition includes leaders with ≥ 12 inches of stretched mesh and leaders with stringers 

from May 6 to July 15 each year. 

• Conducted gear research on the use of alternative pound net leaders 

• Supported the Maryland Tagging/Health Assessment Study – Personnel from the Fish 

and Wildlife Health Program weighed, measured, biopsied, tagged, and released sea 

turtles incidentally captured in pound nets in Chesapeake Bay. Appropriation for 

cooperative conservation and recovery efforts with states was the source of funding for 

this project. 

• Supported a health assessment study on sea turtles caught in New York pound nets, 

which was conducted during this period – Appropriation for cooperative conservation 

and recovery efforts with states was the source of funding for this project. 

• Supported a study on factors contributing to marine turtle cold stunning events in Cape 

Cod Bay – Appropriation for cooperative conservation and recovery efforts with states 

was a partial source of funding for this project. 

• Supported the New England Aquarium and Wellfleet Audubon for cold stun response 

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

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

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

Priority recovery actions needed for the Kemp’s ridley sea turtle include the following: 

• Minimize mortality of Kemp’s ridley turtles from commercial fisheries. 

• Support Mexico in its conservation efforts on beaches and expansion of in-water 

management. 

• Continue and improve stock assessments. 

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

environment. 

• Identify important marine habitat. 

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

for recovery are being met. 

• Reduce threats to the Kemp’s ridley population and foraging habitat from marine 

pollution. 

Recovery Priority Number: 5 

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

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

activities. 

15 
 

 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

Leatherback Sea Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) 

Date Listed: June 2, 1970 

Legal Status: Endangered 

Recovery Plan Status: 

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

Atlantic: A final recovery plan was approved on April 6, 1992. 

Species Status: 

In the Pacific, the leatherback turtle is declining at all key nesting beaches except Jamursba-Medi 

Beach, Indonesia, where there is a long-term decline in the nesting population, but a short-term 

(since 1999) stability in population numbers. Leatherbacks were extirpated from Malaysia in 

recent years, and may potentially be extirpated from the entire Pacific if action is not taken. In 

the Atlantic, nesting trends for key beaches in South America are mixed, while other important 

nesting beaches (e.g., Florida and St. Croix) are showing an increase. 

Threats and Impacts: 

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

following: 

• Incidental capture in commercial and artisanal fisheries – Some fisheries known to 

interact with leatherbacks with varying degrees of impact include: drift gillnet, longline, 

purse seine, pot/trap, pound net, and bottom and mid-water trawl fisheries. 

• Pollution (ingestion of and entanglement in fixed lines, marine debris, oil pollution) 

• Boating activities that may result in direct injury or death through collision impact or 

propeller wounds 

• Pesticides, heavy metals, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) – These materials and 

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

• 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. 

• Potential acoustical disturbance – Potential impacts from acoustical disturbance from 

sonar and seismic surveys are poorly understood. 

• Navy exercises – There is minimal information on various short-term and longer-term 

Navy exercises that may impact the migratory and foraging behavior of turtles and their 

habitats. 

• Entanglement in “ghost” fishing gear – Leatherbacks can become entangled in discarded 

fishing gear. 

16 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

Conservation Actions: 

Conservation actions conducted in 2002–2004 for recovery of the leatherback turtle include the 

following: 

 Pacific/Indian Ocean: 

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

California and the Pacific Northwest 

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

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

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

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

• Supported aerial surveys of leatherback nesting beaches in Mexico 

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

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

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

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

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

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

beach; surveying for other possible leatherback nesting beaches). 

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

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

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

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

New Guinea 

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

provided circle hooks and technical support for experimental testing modified gear 

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

longline fishery on leatherback turtles and to document the direct harvest of leatherbacks 

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

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

proper handling of hooked and entangled leatherbacks; and carrying and using 

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

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

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

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

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

DNA analysis 

• Ratified a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the NMFS Southwest 

Fisheries Science Center and Instituto del Mar del Peru (IMARPE) in 2004 to lay the 

groundwork for future leatherback bycatch reduction programs 

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

Turtles, November 2004, which passed Resolution COP2CIT-001, “Conservation of 

Leatherback Turtles” 

• Convened the Second Western Pacific Sea Turtle Cooperative Research and Management 

Workshop with the Western Pacific Fisheries Management Council, May 19–21, 2004, to 

focus on the west Pacific leatherback stock 

17 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

• 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 

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

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

Marine Resources Authority 

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

conservation and management efforts 

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

Arnavon Islands in the Solomon Islands 

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

Ocean Resources Management Authority and the tuna longline industry to provide 

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

future management activities 

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

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

Network (STSSN), including genetic sampling and analysis of age classes 

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

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

turtles in Canada 

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

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

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

comprehensive framework for the conservation and protection of sea turtles and their 

habitats in the Indo-Pacific region

 Atlantic Ocean: 

• Developed and required the use of turtle excluder devices (TEDs) that can exclude 

leatherbacks in shrimp fisheries operating in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico 

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

Network (STSSN), including genetic sampling and analysis of age classes 

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

address sea turtle entanglement in pot and other fishing gear 

• Prohibited the use of large mesh gillnets in Pamlico Sound, North Carolina, during the 

fall months when sea turtles are migrating through the sound 

• Prohibited the use of large mesh gillnets in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) in the 

mid-Atlantic during times when sea turtles are most likely to interact with the gear 

• Prohibited the use of all pound net leaders in a defined area of the Virginia waters of the 

Chesapeake Bay from May 6 through July 15 each year – Outside this area, the 

prohibition of leaders with ≥ 12 inches of stretched mesh and leaders with stringers is in 

place from May 6 to July 15 each year. 

• Supported the Maryland Tagging/Health Assessment Study – Personnel from the Fish 

and Wildlife Health Program weighed, measured, biopsied, tagged, and released sea 

turtles incidentally captured in pound nets in Chesapeake Bay. Appropriation for 

cooperative conservation and recovery efforts with states was the source of funding for 

this project. 

18 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

• Supported satellite telemetry studies in Canadian waters to research the behavior and 

ecology of one of the largest seasonal foraging populations of leatherbacks in the Atlantic 

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

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

turtles in Canada 

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

Turtles 

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

DNA analysis 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

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

• Reduce incidental captures in 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. 

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

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

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

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

gears are fished. 

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

production. 

• Support research to determine migration pathways and identify important foraging 

grounds in the Atlantic. 

• Enhance population stock identification. 

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

turtle interactions in pelagic and coastal fisheries. 

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

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

Recovery Priority Number: 1 

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

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

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

19 
Subpopulations No. of Females Nesting 

Annually 

 

 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Caretta caretta) 

Date Listed: July 28, 1978 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: 

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

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

under development. 

Species Status: 

In the Pacific, loggerheads are declining at the major nesting areas in Japan and Australia (Table 

2, Figure 2). In the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, the annual number of loggerhead nests 

between 1989 and 1998 ranged from 53,014 to 92,182, with a mean of 73,751. The U.S. 

population appears to be stable, at best, or declining. Approximately 1,000 nests were recorded 

for beaches in Quintana Roo, Mexico, in 1998 and nesting appears to be stable or increasing. 

Table 2. Status and trends of Pacific loggerhead nesting subpopulations 

Trends 

Japan <1,000 Mixed1 

Australia (eastern, 70% of 

nesting) <500 Declining 

New Caledonia tens or low hundreds Unknown 1

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 

Number of loggerhead nests/year on 

Maehama Beach and Inakahama Beach, 

Yakushima Island, Japan 

0 

200 

400 

600 

800 

1000 

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 

Year 

Number of Nests

Inakahama 

Maehama 

Figure 2. Abundance and 

trend of loggerhead sea 

turtle nests on Yakushima 

Island, Japan 

Threats and Impacts: 

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

following: 

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

with loggerheads include gillnet, longline, purse-seine, pound net, dredge, fixed pot/trap, 

and bottom and mid-water trawl fisheries. 

20 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

• Directed take of immature loggerhead sea turtles in Mexico 

• Entanglement in marine debris 

• Pollution (e.g., ingestion of marine debris, chemical pollution in algae/seagrass feeding 

pastures, light pollution that disorients nesting adults and emergent hatchlings, and oil 

pollution) 

• Boating activities that may result in direct injury or death through collisions or may result 

in habitat degradation through anchoring and propeller scarring 

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

• Hopper dredging entrainment and entrapment and habitat degradation 

• 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. 

• Potential acoustical disturbance – Potential acoustical disturbance from sonar and seismic 

surveys is poorly understood. 

• Navy exercises – There is minimal information on various short-term and longer-term 

Navy exercises that may impact the migratory and foraging behavior of turtles and their 

habitats. 

Conservation Actions: 

Conservation actions conducted in 2002–2004 for recovery of the loggerhead turtle include the 

following: 

Pacific/Indian Ocean: 

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

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

hooked and entangled loggerheads; and carrying and using disentangling and de-hooking 

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

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

using DNA analysis 

• Attached satellite transmitters and tracked loggerheads from nesting beaches in Japan, 

from post-release in U.S. longline gear, and from foraging grounds off Baja California 

(Mexico); researched migration routes and preferred oceanic habitat 

• Ratified a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Southwest Fisheries 

Science Center and Instituto del Mar del Peru (IMARPE) in 2004 to lay the groundwork 

for future loggerhead bycatch reduction programs 

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

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

• Supported education and collaborative work with Mexican halibut set gillnet fisheries in 

Baja California to reduce take of turtles 

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

provided circle hooks and technical support for experiments testing modified gear 

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

longline fishery on loggerheads turtles 

• 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
 

21 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

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

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

Marine Resources Authority 

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

Network (STSSN), including genetic sampling and analysis of age classes 

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

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

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

comprehensive framework for the conservation and protection of sea turtles and their 

habitats in the Indo-Pacific region 

Atlantic Ocean: 

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

Network (STSSN), including genetic sampling and analysis of age classes 

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

address sea turtle entanglement in pot and other fishing gear 

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

scallop dredges, pound net leaders, and whelk pots 

• Developed and implemented turtle excluder devices (TEDs) large enough to release 

leatherback sea turtles, as well as large green and loggerhead sea turtles 

• Prohibited the use of large mesh gillnets in Pamlico Sound, North Carolina, during the 

fall months when sea turtles are migrating through the sound 

• Prohibited the use of large mesh gillnets in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) in 

the mid-Atlantic during times when sea turtles are most likely to interact with the gear 

• Prohibited the use of all pound net leaders in a defined area of the Virginia waters of the 

Chesapeake Bay from May 6 through July 15 each year – Outside this area, the 

prohibition of leaders with ≥ 12 inches of stretched mesh and leaders with stringers is 

from May 6 to July 15 each year. 

• Supported the Maryland Tagging/Health Assessment Study – Personnel from the Fish 

and Wildlife Health Program weighed, measured, biopsied, tagged, and released sea 

turtles incidentally captured in pound nets in Chesapeake Bay. Appropriation for 

cooperative conservation and recovery efforts with states was the source of funding for 

this project. 

• Supported a health assessment study on sea turtles caught in New York pound nets – 

Appropriation for cooperative conservation and recovery efforts with states was the 

source of funding for this project. 

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

Turtles 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

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

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

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

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

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

22 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

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

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

criteria are met. 

• Promote best management practices for nesting beaches in Japan. 

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

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

turtles. 

• Closely monitor and proactively address the development of fisheries targeting 

loggerhead prey species.
 

Recovery Priority Number: 5 

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

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

activities. 

23 
Subpopulation No. of Females Nesting Annually 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

Olive Ridley Sea Turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea) 

Date Listed: July 28, 1978 

Legal Status: 

Endangered (breeding colony populations of Pacific coast of Mexico) 

Threatened (rangewide except where listed as endangered) 

Recovery Plan Status: 

A recovery plan for the U.S. Pacific populations of the olive ridley sea turtle was approved on 

January 12, 1998. 

Species Status: 

See Table 3 for status and trend data for subpopulations of the olive ridley sea turtle. 

Table 3. Status and trends of olive ridley nesting subpopulations 

Trend 

Mexico – Playa Escobilla 525,000 (nests) Increasing 

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

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

Guatemala 4,300,000 (eggs) Declining 

Nicaragua Unknown Unknown 

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

Indonesia Scattered Unknown 

Malaysia Scattered Declining 1 Although the data are too limited for a statistically valid determination of a trend, there does appear to be a 6-year 

decrease in the number of nesting females.

2 Although there has been no drastic decline in the nesting population in the past 25 years, there are differences in 

trends between decades. Data from the 1990s show the population is declining or on the verge of a decline, and no 

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

Threats and Impacts: 

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

following: 

• Egg harvest 

• Direct harvest of adults (including nesting females) 

• Boat collisions 

• Disease (fibropapilloma) 

• Nesting activity of other olive ridley turtles – Nesting turtles destroy eggs by 

inadvertently digging up previously laid nests or causing them to be contaminated by 

bacteria and other pathogens from rotting nests nearby. 

• Incidental take in commercial and artisanal fisheries – Some fisheries are known to 

interact with olive ridleys, including gillnets (Chilean artisanal driftnet fishery for 

swordfish, Taiwanese coastal set net and gillnet fishery), longline fisheries (U.S. longline 

fleet for swordfish/tuna, Costa Rican longline fleet for mahi mahi), purse seine fisheries 

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

24 
 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

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

Peruvian artisanal fisheries (gillnets and hook and line). 

Conservation Actions: 

Conservation actions conducted in 2002–2004 for recovery of the olive ridley turtle include the 

following: 

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

DNA analysis 

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

ridleys in the eastern tropical Pacific during NOAA research cruises 

• 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 

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

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

Marine Resources Authority 

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

Ocean Resources Management Authority and the tuna longline industry to provide 

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

future management activities 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

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

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

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

• Support nations in monitoring programs for pelagic and coastal fisheries. 

Recovery Priority Number: 

5 (Breeding colony populations of Pacific coast of Mexico); 5 (Rangewide)
 

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

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

activities. 

25 
 

 

 

 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

PACIFIC SALMON RECOVERY 

Overview for 2002–2004 

Evolutionarily Significant Units Listed Under the ESA 

Throughout most of 2002–2004, 26 species – or Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs)1

 – of 

Pacific salmon and steelhead were listed under the ESA. Of these 26 ESUs, 16 occur solely in 

the NMFS Northwest Region (NWR), 9 occur solely in the NMFS Southwest Region (SWR), 

and 1 ESU – the Southern Oregon/Northern California coast coho salmon ESU – overlaps both 

Regions2. The listing for Oregon coast coho salmon ESU was recently invalidated by a U.S. 

District Court, and was proposed for relisting in a June 2004 proposed rule (see “Listing 

Actions” below) (69 FR 33102; June 14, 2004). One new ESU – the Lower Columbia River 

coho ESU – was also proposed for listing in the rule, bringing to 27 the total number of ESUs 

included in the June 14, 2004, proposed rule. 

Recovery Planning Efforts for Pacific Salmon and Steelhead 

NMFS believes it is critically important to ground the recovery planning process for Pacific 

salmon in the many state, regional, tribal, local, and private conservation efforts already under 

way throughout the region. The agency has established a recovery planning process to maximize 

local involvement and capitalize on these ongoing efforts3

. 

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

involvement, NMFS organized the 26 listed ESUs into nine recovery areas or "domains" (see 

Figure 3; for maps of individual ESU distribution see Appendix A, Figure A-1). Recovery 

domains in the NWR are the Puget Sound, Willamette/Lower Columbia, Interior Columbia, 

Oregon Coast, and Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast Domains; domains in the SWR 

are the Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast, North-Central California Coast, California 

Central Valley, and South-Central California Coast Domains. Recovery planning for the 

Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast domain is managed jointly by the NWR and SWR. 

For each recovery domain, one or more recovery plans are being developed to address the ESUs 

within that domain. Technical Recovery Teams (TRTs), composed of regional technical experts 

and NMFS scientists, have been appointed for each domain. In Phase I of Pacific salmon 

recovery planning, the TRTs conduct technical analyses, which include the following: (1) 

identifying the independent populations or recovery units within the ESU; (2) identifying 

population viability guidelines and ESU recovery goals; and (3) identifying research, evaluation, 

and monitoring needs. Some TRTs are also characterizing habitat and fish abundance 

relationships, identifying the factors for decline and limiting factors for each ESU, and 

1

 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 treats an ESU as constituting a distinct population segment, and hence a “species,” under the ESA 

(56 FR 58612; November 20, 1991). 

2

 See Figure A-1 in Appendix A for the geographic distribution of Pacific salmon ESUs on the West Coast. 

3

 For more information on recovery activities being implemented by other Federal agencies, states, regional fora, 

local municipalities, and private organizations and individuals, please see the summary of “Efforts Being Made to 

Protect West Coast Salmon and O. mykiss” in the recent proposed listing determinations for West Coast salmon and 

steelhead (69 FR 33102; June 14, 2004). 

26 
 

 

 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

identifying the early actions important for recovery. In Phase II, NMFS is working with ongoing 

state, tribal, regional, local, and private efforts in each domain to develop a recovery plan 

identifying the measures and actions necessary for achieving the recovery goals identified by the 

TRTs. The structure and level of stakeholder participation varies within and across recovery 

planning domains; however, NMFS ensures the timeframe, degree of certainty, and economic 

cost for achieving recovery goals are assessed for all recovery plans. 

The TRTs in the NWR have made significant progress in Phase I of the recovery planning 

process by identifying independent populations within the subject ESUs, and developing 

population viability guidelines and ESU recovery goals. In the SWR, identification of 

independent populations is well under way and preliminary work on viability criteria for these 

populations has begun. Phase II of recovery planning has commenced in each of the NWR 

domains, and the SWR has been working closely with specific co-managers and stakeholders to 

guide ongoing recovery planning and implementation efforts – e.g., the CALFED Bay-Delta 

program in the Central Valley and the State of California’s coho salmon recovery plan 

development process. Generally, regional groups are evaluating the available TRT technical 

products and focusing on identifying the measures and actions necessary for achieving the 

recovery goals identified by the TRTs. Important steps in this process include the following: (1) 

inventorying all ongoing state, tribal, local, and Federal conservation plans and planning efforts; 

(2) evaluating the existing conservation plans and efforts to assess how well they address 

identified factors for decline and limiting factors, and the extent to which they collectively 

achieve the identified recovery goals; (3) identifying and evaluating any additional or alternative 

measures necessary for achieving the identified recovery goals; (4) prioritizing the required 

recovery measures and identifying the entity(ies) responsible for implementing them; and (5) 

estimating the costs and time needed to carry out the identified recovery measures. Table 4 

summarizes the recovery planning progress for Pacific salmon in each of the recovery planning 

domains. 

As described earlier, NMFS found that all 26 previously listed ESUs still warranted the 

protections of the ESA and proposed extending ESA protections to one previously unlisted 

ESU.4

 Nonetheless, significant progress has been made in achieving the conservation and 

recovery of listed salmon and steelhead stocks in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho. The 

encouraging recent improvements in returns represent an opportunity for recovery actions to 

yield significant progress toward restoring salmon and steelhead stocks. As recovery plans are 

developed, the specific recovery goals for each ESU will be detailed. 

Listing Actions 

In June 2004, NMFS completed a review of the ESA listing status of 27 West Coast salmon and 

steelhead ESUs (69 FR 33102; June 14, 2004). This review was precipitated by a 2001 court 

ruling involving Oregon Coast coho salmon (Alsea Valley Alliance v. Evans), which concluded 

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

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

4 See Table A-1 in Appendix A, which describes the most recently compiled status information for 27 ESUs of 

Pacific salmon on the West Coast. This table includes qualitative trends in viability criteria for each ESU, based on 

the current status relative to ESU status at time of listing or first review. 

27 
 

 

 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

directly only to Oregon Coast coho salmon, the same circumstances (i.e., hatchery populations or 

resident populations not listed but still considered part of listed ESUs) also applied to nearly all 

of NMFS’ previous listing determinations. Informed by the court’s ruling in Alsea, hatchery 

programs and resident populations considered part of an ESU were included in the 2004 

proposed listing determinations. Approximately 140 hatchery programs are proposed for listing 

as part of the Northwest ESUs, and approximately 20 as part of the Southwest ESUs. Table 5 

provides a complete list of current and proposed ESA listing status for these 27 ESUs. 

Critical Habitat 

Section 4(b)(2) of the ESA requires NMFS to designate critical habitat for threatened and 

endangered species. In 2002, NMFS’ critical habitat designations for 19 Pacific salmon ESUs 

in 2000 (65 FR 7764; February 16, 2000) were challenged for inadequately considering the 

economic impacts of the critical habitat designations (National Association of Homebuilders v. 

Evans). In a separate case, the Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit ruled the approach to 

economic analysis employed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and NMFS in critical 

habitat designations was insufficient (New Mexico Cattlegrowers’ Association v. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service). On April 30, 2002, NMFS entered into a consent decree to vacate the critical 

habitat designations promulgated in 2000, and formally removed the critical habitat designations 

for 19 ESUs in September 2003, including 13 NWR ESUs and 6 SWR ESUs (68 FR 55900; 

September 29, 2003)5

. Critical habitat designations remained in place for four Northwest ESUs 

not subject to the consent decree (Snake River sockeye, Southern Oregon/Northern California 

Coast coho, Snake River spring/summer Chinook, and Snake River fall Chinook) and for three 

Southwest ESUs (Sacramento River winter-run Chinook, Central California Coast coho, and 

Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast coho). 

On December 10 and 14, 2004, NMFS published separate proposed rules to designate critical 

habitat for 13 ESUs in the NWR and 7 ESUs in the SWR6. The specific areas proposed for 

designation in the NWR include approximately 27,553 miles (44,342 km) of lake, riverine, and 

estuarine habitat in the three northwestern states, as well as approximately 2,121 miles (3,413 

km) of marine nearshore habitat in Puget Sound, Washington. The specific areas proposed for 

designation in the SWR include approximately 11,668 miles (18,669 km) of riverine habitat and 

947 square miles (2,444 sq km) of estuarine habitat in San Francisco Bay. The proposed rules 

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

designations, and a range of areas being considered for exclusion in the final rule on critical 

habitat designations. 

Overall Status 

In recent years, the abundance of both hatchery-reared and naturally spawning populations of 

listed salmon and steelhead ESUs has generally increased. This increase in abundance is likely 

5

 Critical habitat was vacated for the following thirteen NWR ESUs: Ozette Lake sockeye; Puget Sound, Lower 

Columbia River, Upper Willamette River, and Upper Columbia River Chinook; Oregon Coast coho; Hood Canal 

summer-run and Columbia River chum; Upper Columbia River, Snake River Basin, Lower Columbia River, Upper 

Willamette River, and Middle Columbia River steelhead. Critical habitat was vacated for the following six SWR 

ESUs: California Central Valley spring-run and California Coastal Chinook; Southern California, South-Central 

California, Central California Coast, and Central Valley California steelhead. 6

 See 69 FR 71880, December 10, 2004; and 69 FR 74572, December 14, 2004. 

28 
 

 

 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

due to changes in ocean conditions; improvements to habitat from restoration efforts; and 

changes in harvest regimes, hydropower operations, and hatchery practices implemented since 

the listings occurred. Although improvements are seen in many salmon populations, others 

within the listed ESUs have exhibited mixed trends or have declined in abundance. For the most 

recent information on ESU trends for listed Pacific salmon, please see the forthcoming 2005 

Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund Report to Congress (see the PCSRF website at: 

http://webapps.nwfsc.noaa.gov/servlet/page?_pageid=784&_dad=portal30&_schema=PORTAL 

30). 

Population declines and extirpations of Pacific salmon and steelhead are the result of numerous 

factors affecting habitat (such as hydropower development, land development, resource 

extraction, and other land uses), as well as harvest practices, hatchery practices7

, natural 

variation in ocean-climate conditions, and other factors such as predation and the introduction of 

non-native species. These factors affect each listed salmon and steelhead ESU differently, and 

no single factor is solely responsible for population declines. Furthermore, it is difficult to 

quantify precisely the relative contribution of any one factor to the decline of a given ESU. 

Activities Contributing to Recovery 

The statutory and regulatory tools of the ESA are being used to alleviate many threats to listed 

salmon in the short-term. The contributions of such tools to salmon recovery are described 

below. 

4(d) Rule Activities 

ESA section 9(a) take prohibitions apply to all ESA-listed endangered species. For threatened 

species, ESA section 4(d) leaves it to NMFS’ discretion whether and to what extent section 9(a) 

prohibitions will extend to a given species, and authorizes NMFS to issue regulations considered 

necessary for the conservation of the species. NMFS has promulgated 4(d) rules that exempt a 

range of activities from the take prohibitions of threatened salmon and steelhead ESUs8

. In the 

NWR, over 500 programs or activities have been approved under the 4(d) rule. These include 

472 research activities and 52 programs in areas such as hatchery and harvest management plans, 

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

resource management plans. In the SWR during the biennium, 78 California Department of Fish 

and Game scientific research programs were authorized under the 4(d) rule. Such programs 

benefit salmon by addressing threats and by being conducted in a way that adequately protects 

listed ESUs. In turn, the non-Federal entities conducting the activities benefit from the certainty 

that they are in compliance with the ESA. 

As part of the June 2004 updated listing determinations, NMFS also proposed amending existing 

protective regulations under section 4(d) for threatened ESUs. The proposed changes will ensure 

that fisheries and artificial propagation can be managed in a manner consistent with the 

7

 Hatchery fish can benefit recovery by augmenting populations to support harvest and meet tribal treaty fishing 

rights, and can also provide the last level of protection against extinction. Potential negative aspects of hatcherybred fish include competition for food and altered genetic diversity of natural populations. 

8 See 62 FR 38479, July 18, 1997; 65 FR 42422, July 10, 2000; 65 FR 42485, July 10, 2000; and 67 FR 1116, 

January 9, 2002. 

29 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

conservation and recovery of threatened salmon and steelhead. Furthermore, the proposed 

changes will streamline existing regulations so that conservation opportunities associated with 

the 4(d) protective regulations are more clearly conveyed to affected parties. 

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 FY2003 and 2004, the NWR conducted over 3,200 section 7 consultations, and the 

SWR conducted 582. These consultations ensure Federal actions are conducted in ways that are 

not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or adversely modify or destroy 

critical habitat. The scope of section 7 consultations includes actions related to land 

management, transportation, restoration, fill and removal of materials in stream channels, and 

hydropower operation. 

Section 10 Activities 

Section 10 of the ESA provides authorization for incidental take that may occur as a part of 

otherwise lawful activities carried out by non-Federal entities (e.g., timber harvest, water supply 

management, and other resource extraction and land management activities) or as part of 

scientific research or enhancement activities. Such authorization allows those conducting such 

activities to proceed with the certainty of ESA compliance and ensures that any adverse impacts 

caused to listed species are being avoided, minimized, or mitigated. In FY2003 and 2004, the 

NWR approved, implemented, or collaborated on 39 Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) under 

ESA section 10 and issued a total of five permits. The SWR collaborated on 22 HCPs at various 

stages of development, review, or negotiation during the biennium and issued no permits during 

this time. Additionally, the NWR issued 115 new and modified permits for scientific research 

and enhancement activities under section 10; the SWR issued 18 such permits. 

Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund 

The Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund (PCSRF) was established by Congress in FY2000 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 recovery planning (approximately $1 million in the NWR) and building 

organizational infrastructure so the long-term goal of salmon recovery can be achieved. In 

FY2003 and 2004, Congress appropriated about $180 million of PCSRF funds for state and tribal 

salmon restoration and conservation efforts. The states provided a 25 percent match to these 

Federal funds. Since FY2000, over 4,000 projects have been funded for habitat protection and 

restoration; watershed and sub-basin planning and assessment; research, monitoring, and 

evaluation; and public outreach and education. For more information, please see the 2004 

Report to Congress on the PCSRF and funded activities, which is available online at 

http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/pcsrf/. 

30 
Snake 

Kla m ath 

Kings 

Columbia 

Sacram e nto 

Wil lamette 

S an Jo aquin 

Columbia 

Columbia 

San Joaquin 

! Bellingham 

Puget Sound 

! Spokane Seattle ! Wenatchee
 ! 

âOlympia 

Yakima 

!

Astoria ! 

Walla Walla ! 

Portland 

Interior Columbia ! 

â Sal

Will

em 

amette/Lower Columbia

! 

Eugene Bend 

! 

! Coos Bay âBoise 

Oregon Coast 

Pocatello ! 

Medford 

!

Northern California/Southern Oregon

Recovery Domain 

Interior Columbia Central Valley Eureka 

! 

Puget Sound North-Central California Coast ! Redding 

Willamette/Lower Columbia South-Central/Southern California Coast

Central Valley Overlapping Domains - Northern California/Southern Oregon Oregon Coast & North Central California Coast 

Overlapping Domains - Willamette/Lower Columbia Northern California/Southern Oregon & Interior Columbia 

Lake Tahoe ! 0 100 200 Miles 

âSacramento

North-Central California Coast ± !

San Francisco 

! Santa Cruz 

! Fresno 

South-Central/Southern California Coast Santa Barbara ! 

Los Angeles ! 

San Diego ! 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report 

Table 4. Summary of NMFS' recovery planning progress by recovery planning domain for ESA-listed Pacific Salmon (Oncorhy

Recovery Planning 

Domain ESU Identification of Independent Populations 

Completed 

Technical Recove

Population Viability Guidelines and ESU 

Recovery Goals Completed 

ry Teams (Phase I) 

Phase II R

Planning 

Puget Sound 

Puget Sound Chinook Hood Canal Summer chum Ozette Lake Sockeye 

Yes Yes Y

Willamette/Lower Columbia 

Upper Willamette River Chinook Lower Columbia River Chinook Lower Columbia River steelhead Columbia River chum Upper Willamette River steelhead 

Yes Yes Y

Interior Columbia 

Upper Columbia River spring Chinook Snake River spring/summer Chinook Snake River fall Chinook Upper Columbia River steelhead Middle Columbia River steelhead Snake River Basin steelhead Snake River sockeye 

Yes Yes Y

Oregon Coast Oregon Coast coho Yes By June 2005 Y

S. Oregon/N. California Coast Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast coho By Mid 2005 By Late 2005 Ye

North-central California Coast 

Central California coast coho Northern California steelhead California coast Chinook Central California coast steelhead 

By Mid 2005 By Late 2005 Ye

South-central California Coast 

South-central California coast steelhead Southern California steelhead By Mid to Late 2005 By Early 2006 Ye

Sacramento River winter-run Chinook yes 

By Late 2005 Ye

California Central Valley Central Valley spring-run Chinook 

Central Valley steelhead 

yes 

By Mid 2005 

1 Preliminary efforts for coho salmon are under way with the State of California.2 Efforts for Phase II are currently under way, including coordination with the State of California on its adopted Recovery Strategy for Coho Salmon.3 Only limited efforts for Phase II recovery planning are under way at this time.4 Preliminary efforts for Phase II recovery planning are under way at this time – primarily through coordination with the CALFED Bay-Delta Program in the Central Val

32 
 

Recovery Planning 

Domain ESU1 Current ESA Listing 

Status 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Threatened 3

Threatened 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Threatened 

 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

Table 5. Current and proposed ESA listing status of 27 Pacific salmon ESUs. 

Proposed ESA Listing 

Status 2 

Puget Sound 

Puget Sound Chinook Threatened 

Hood Canal Summer chum Threatened 

Ozette Lake Sockeye Threatened 

Willamette/Lower Columbia 

Upper Willamette River Chinook Threatened 

Lower Columbia River Chinook Threatened 

Lower Columbia River steelhead Threatened 

Lower Columbia River coho Proposed 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 Threatened 

Middle Columbia River steelhead Threatened 

Snake River Basin steelhead Threatened 

Snake River sockeye Endangered 

Oregon Coast Oregon Coast coho3 Threatened 

S. Oregon/N. California Coast Southern Oregon/Northern California 

Coast coho 

Threatened 

North-central California Coast 

Central California coast coho Threatened Endangered 

Northern California steelhead Threatened 

California coast Chinook Threatened 

Central California coast steelhead Threatened 

South-central California Coast 

South-central California coast steelhead Threatened 

Southern California steelhead Endangered 

California Central Valley 

Sacramento River winter-run Chinook Endangered Threatened 

Central Valley spring-run Chinook Threatened 

Central Valley steelhead Threatened 

1 An Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) is a distinctive group of Pacific salmon or steelhead, considered to be a “species” under the ESA.
 2

 On June 14, 2004, NMFS proposed updated listing determinations for all 26 previously listed Pacific salmon ESUs, as well as one previously
 

unlisted ESU (69 FR 33102).

3 The 1998 threatened listing of the Oregon coast coho salmon was set aside by a District Court ruling in Alsea Valley Alliance v. Evans (161 F.
 

Supp. 2d 1154, D. Oreg. 2001). Although the District Court's ruling was stayed pending resolution of an appeal by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of 

Appeals, on February 24, 2004, the Appeals Court dismissed the appeal and dissolved its stay of the District Court's ruling, thus removing 

Oregon coast coho from ESA protections (Alsea Valley v. Evans, 9th Circuit appeal, No. 01-36071). See this section for further information.
 

33 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

Salmon Recovery in the Northwest 

Lower Columbia River Chinook ESU (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) 

Date Listed: March 24, 1999 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: 

No recovery plan has been completed, but recovery planning is under way. 

• Phase I – Technical Recovery Teams have identified independent populations and 

completed the population viability guidelines and ESU recovery goals. 

• Phase II – Recovery planning has been initiated for this ESU. 

• A plan for the Washington portion of this ESU was completed by Washington’s Lower 

Columbia Fish Recovery Board in December 2004. This plan will be released by NMFS 

for public comment in 2005. Once these comments are incorporated, the plan will be used 

as an interim recovery plan pending completion of the Oregon portion. 

Species Status: 

The estimated historical abundance of the Lower Columbia River Chinook ESU is 108,000. The 

recent mean abundance of this ESU is 11,720. Since the time of listing or first review for this 

ESU, its productivity has remained unchanged, and its population abundance has remained 

unchanged. 

Threats and Impacts: 

Threats and impacts to the Lower Columbia River Chinook ESU include the following: 

• Reduced access to spawning and rearing habitat because of tributary hydropower systems 

• Hatchery impacts 

• Loss of habitat diversity and channel stability in tributaries (from forest practices, 

agriculture, and development) 

• Excessive sediment in spawning gravel (from forest practices and agriculture) 

• Elevated water temperature in tributaries (from flow modification and riparian area 

degradation) 

• Harvest impacts to fall Chinook salmon 

Conservation Actions: 

Major accomplishments for this ESU in 2002–2004 include the following: 

• Accomplished hydropower operational changes and agreements for dam removal – 

NMFS began implementation of the Cowlitz River Settlement Agreement, under Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) relicensing, and completed the Lewis River 

Settlement Agreement. These agreements included reintroduction efforts into previously 

blocked habitat, improved flow releases, dam passage survival studies and plans for 

improvements, and habitat improvements. NMFS also began implementation of the 

Settlement Agreement for the Powerdale Hydroelectric Project, which will improve fish 

passage conditions in the Hood River and result in the removal of Powerdale Dam in 

2010; and implementation of the Settlement Agreement for the Bull Run Hydroelectric 

34 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

Project, which will result in the removal of Marmot Dam in 2007 and restoration of 

unimpeded passage in the Sandy River. 

• Conducted local habitat restoration projects – Hundreds of projects have improved 

riparian areas, fish passage at barriers, and stream function. Some local governments 

have also upgraded their ordinances to offer greater habitat protection. 

• Improved forest management practices on Federal lands and some state and private lands 

– The Northwest Forest Plan Aquatic Conservation Strategy continued in 2002–2004. 

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 

the forest practices rules 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 forest lands in Washington State. 

• Instituted hatchery operational reforms to ensure hatcheries benefit conservation efforts 

and reduce risks to the ESU 

• Externally marked hatchery fish to provide for selective fisheries targeting hatchery 

spring Chinook and to allow for the identification of hatchery and wild fish at weirs and 

traps, on the spawning grounds, and during broodstock collection 

• Improved management of in-river fisheries through the implementation of Fisheries 

Management and Evaluation Plans for all tributary fisheries – The marking of hatchery 

spring Chinook has permitted implementation of selective commercial and recreational 

fisheries for spring Chinook, reducing impacts to wild spring Chinook salmon from 65 

percent to 22 percent. 

• Completed a draft recovery plan for the Washington portion of this ESU – The Lower 

Columbia Fish Recovery Board completed this plan in December 2004. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

Priority recovery actions needed for this ESU include the following: 

• Provide fish passage at tributary dams and small passage blockages, including road 

crossings and culverts that block or impede fish passage. Where fish passage efforts at 

tributary dams are under way, continue to improve juvenile and adult passage survival. 

• Improve flow management below tributary dams by refining releases to enhance fish 

protection. 

• Improve land use practices affecting water quality, channel stability, and floodplain 

function to prevent further degradation of these habitat attributes and to protect existing 

habitat, especially in lowland stream reaches. Conduct habitat restoration to restore 

degraded water quality, channel stability, and floodplain function and associated 

watershed processes. 

• Further improve hatchery practices by marking hatchery fall Chinook, updating adult 

traps and weirs, using alternate release strategies, and developing localized broodstocks. 

• Improve 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). 

35 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

Recovery Priority Number: 1 

With a high magnitude of threat, high recovery potential, and the presence of conflict, this ESU 

has been assigned a recovery priority number of one. The magnitude of threat to this ESU has 

been classified as high, because of strong risks to its abundance, productivity, spatial structure, 

and diversity (which largely have persisted since its status was first reviewed), and the fact that 

this ESU faces a strong extinction risk in the foreseeable future. This ESU does not meet the 

criteria for a moderate magnitude of threat (which stipulate that the species will not face 

extinction if recovery is temporarily held off, although there is a continuing population decline or 

threat to its habitat). Delaying recovery for this ESU would likely result in mounting extinction 

risks rather than maintaining the status quo level of risk. The recovery potential for this ESU has 

also been classified as high. Although numerous factors limit the recovery of this ESU, the 

source of these factors and their demographic impacts are relatively well understood and 

recovery planning is currently under way. Although it may be cost-prohibitive to completely 

address every limiting factor, it is likely that integrated reduction of most threats can achieve 

recovery of this ESU. Finally, as a complex variety of activities and management practices 

continue to impact the conservation and recovery of all Pacific salmon ESUs listed under the 

ESA, NMFS has determined “conflict” exists with regard to this ESU. Taken together, these 

three factors correspond to a recovery priority number of one. 

36 
 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

Puget Sound Chinook ESU (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) 

Date Listed: March 24, 1999 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: 

No recovery plan has been completed, but recovery planning is under way. 

• Phase I – Technical Recovery Teams have identified independent populations and 

completed the population viability guidelines and ESU recovery goals. 

• Phase II – Recovery planning has been initiated for this ESU. 

• A draft recovery plan for this ESU is expected by December 2005. 

Species Status: 

The estimated historical abundance of the Puget Sound Chinook ESU is 670,000. The recent 

mean abundance of this ESU is 21,189. Since the time of listing or first review for this ESU, its 

productivity has remained unchanged, and its population abundance has remained unchanged. 

Threats and Impacts: 

Threats and impacts to the Puget Sound Chinook ESU include the following: 

• Freshwater habitat loss and degradation 

• Nearshore and marine habitat loss and degradation 

• Fish passage obstructions along the migration corridor 

• Poor water quality 

• Altered water temperature and flow regime 

• Adverse hatchery impacts 

• Mortality from harvest activities 

Conservation Actions: 

Major accomplishments in 2002–2004 for this ESU include the following: 

• 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. 

• Implemented hatchery management modifications – The implementation of hatchery 

reform recommendations developed independently by the Hatchery Scientific Review 

Group has led to operational changes that are expected to benefit natural Chinook 

populations. Specific threat reduction measures for hatcheries to benefit natural 

populations are provided in the co-managers’ Puget Sound hatchery resource 

management plans and Hatchery and Genetic Management Plans approved by NMFS. 

37 
 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

• Conducted local habitat restoration projects – The Shared Strategy for Puget Sound (a 

coalition of governments, tribes, and stakeholders) is leading significant long-term 

conservation of Chinook salmon and habitat. The 14 local watershed groups within the 

Shared Strategy completed draft watershed recovery plans in June 2004. The plans 

identify habitat actions necessary to achieve population viability goals within the 

watersheds. Local recovery plans describe actions that can be implemented both within 

10 years and over a longer period of time. Projects also included the Snohomish estuary 

protection and restoration project. The City of Everett, the Tulalip Tribe, the port, and a 

coalition of interested groups continued working to protect and restore 1,500 acres of 

estuary. 

• Removed a pipeline barrier to passage for several anadromous fish populations – The 

pipeline was removed by the Tacoma Public Utilities District. 

• Improved forest management practices on Federal lands – The Northwest Forest Plan 

Aquatic Conservation Strategy is designed to conserve and restore salmon and steelhead 

habitat, and provides an anchor for Federal lands’ contribution to salmon recovery. 

• Conducted an ongoing ESA section 7 consultation on the Elwha Dam removal – The 

removal of this dam 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. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

Priority recovery actions needed for this ESU include the following: 

• Restore degraded floodplain and channel structure. 

• Restore and protect estuarine habitat. 

• Improve and restore degraded riparian forests and increase large woody debris 

recruitment. 

• Restore natural sediment routing processes. 

• Improve water quality. 

• Curtail nearshore habitat loss and restore nearshore habitat quality. 

• Restore natural hydrologic processes and improve flow management. 

• Continue to improve hatchery and harvest management. 

Recovery Priority Number: 1 

With a high magnitude of threat, high recovery potential, and the presence of conflict, this ESU 

has been assigned a recovery priority number of one. The magnitude of threat to this ESU has 

been classified as high, because of strong risks to its abundance, productivity, spatial structure, 

and diversity (which largely have persisted since its status was first reviewed), and the fact that 

this ESU faces a strong extinction risk in the foreseeable future. This ESU does not meet the 

criteria for a moderate magnitude of threat (which stipulate that the species will not face 

extinction if recovery is temporarily held off, although there is a continuing population decline or 

threat to its habitat). Delaying recovery for this ESU would likely result in mounting extinction 

risks rather than maintaining the status quo level of risk. The recovery potential for this ESU has 

also been classified as high. Although numerous factors limit the recovery of this ESU, the 

source of these factors and their demographic impacts are relatively well understood and 

recovery planning is currently under way. Although it may be cost-prohibitive to completely 

address every limiting factor, it is likely that integrated reduction of most threats can achieve 

38 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

recovery of this ESU. Finally, as a complex variety of activities and management practices 

continue to impact the conservation and recovery of all Pacific salmon ESUs listed under the 

ESA, NMFS has determined “conflict” exists with regard to this ESU. Taken together, these 

three factors correspond to a recovery priority number of one. 

39 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

Snake River Fall-run Chinook ESU (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) 

Date Listed: April 22, 1992 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: 

A draft recovery plan for this ESU was developed in March of 1995, but was not adopted. No 

recovery plan has been completed for this ESU, but recovery planning is under way. 

• Phase I – Technical Recovery Teams have identified independent populations and 

completed the population viability guidelines and ESU recovery goals. 

• Phase II – Recovery planning has been initiated for this ESU. 

• A draft recovery plan for this ESU is expected by December 2005. 

Species Status: 

The estimated historical abundance of the Snake River fall-run Chinook ESU is 72,000. The 

recent mean abundance of this ESU is 871. Since the time of listing or first review for this ESU, 

its productivity has improved, and its population abundance has improved. 

Threats and Impacts: 

Threats and impacts to the Snake River fall-run Chinook ESU include the following: 

• Obstructions to fish passage along the migration corridor and poor survival in the 

mainstem
 

• Habitat loss and degradation 

• Altered water temperatures and low river flows 

• High mortality from harvest activities 

• Predation 

Conservation Actions: 

Major accomplishments in 2002–2004 for this ESU include the following: 

• Accomplished structural and operational modification to hydropower system 

• Improved Federal land management practices – Land management plans of the U.S. 

Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management are being designed to protect and restore 

habitat. 

• Improved water quality permitting procedures by working with the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) to develop procedures that enhance salmon considerations 

• Conducted local habitat restoration and restoration of stream flows – This work includes 

efforts by the Northwest Power Planning Council Fish and Wildlife Program, Pacific 

Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund (PCSRF), Natural Resources Conservation Service 

(NRCS), 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 expected by Idaho and the Nez Perce Tribe in 2005. 

• Equipped hundreds of irrigation diversions with fish screens 

• Reduced overall harvest rates 

40 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

• Conducted conservation efforts at hatcheries – Started in the 1970s, the Lyons Ferry egg 

bank is an ongoing program that helps preserve diversity within the ESU, especially 

when the population declined to less than 100 fish in 1990. Broodstock has been building 

over time, and 2004 was the first year all facilities reached a capacity of 5 million smolts. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

Priority recovery actions needed for this ESU include the following: 

• Improve survival in the migration corridor. Restoring the migration corridor, including 

the estuary, to a more normative ecological function would increase salmon survival 

above the current 9.85–23.6 percent survival rate for juvenile in-river migrants, 

potentially to as high as 50.8 percent survival. 

• 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. 

• Increase instream flows. 

• Further reduce mortality from harvest activities, which is currently 35-40 percent of the 

run. 

• Control predation. 

Recovery Priority Number: 1 

With a high magnitude of threat, high recovery potential, and the presence of conflict, this ESU 

has been assigned a recovery priority number of one. The magnitude of threat to this ESU has 

been classified as high, because of strong risks to its abundance, productivity, spatial structure, 

and diversity (which largely have persisted since its status was first reviewed), and the fact that 

this ESU faces a strong extinction risk in the foreseeable future. This ESU does not meet the 

criteria for a moderate magnitude of threat (which stipulate that the species will not face 

extinction if recovery is temporarily held off, although there is a continuing population decline or 

threat to its habitat). Delaying recovery for this ESU would likely result in mounting extinction 

risks rather than maintaining the status quo level of risk. The recovery potential for this ESU has 

also been classified as high. Although numerous factors limit the recovery of this ESU, the 

source of these factors and their demographic impacts are relatively well understood and 

recovery planning is currently under way. Although it may be cost-prohibitive to completely 

address every limiting factor, it is likely that integrated reduction of most threats can achieve 

recovery of this ESU. Finally, as a complex variety of activities and management practices 

continue to impact the conservation and recovery of all Pacific salmon ESUs listed under the 

ESA, NMFS has determined “conflict” exists with regard to this ESU. Taken together, these 

three factors correspond to a recovery priority number of one. 

41 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

Snake River Spring/Summer-run Chinook ESU (Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha) 

Date Listed: April 22, 1992 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: 

A draft recovery plan for this ESU was developed in March 1995, but was not adopted. No 

recovery plan has been completed for this ESU, but recovery planning is under way. 

• Phase I – Technical Recovery Teams have identified independent populations and 

completed the population viability guidelines and ESU recovery goals. 

• Phase II – Recovery planning has been initiated for this ESU. 

• A draft recovery plan for this ESU is expected by December 2005. 

Species Status: 

The estimated historical abundance of the Snake River spring/summer-run Chinook ESU is over 

1.5 million. The recent mean abundance of this ESU is 9,700. Since the time of listing or first 

review for this ESU, its productivity has improved, and its population abundance has improved. 

Threats and Impacts: 

Threats and impacts to the Snake River spring/summer-run Chinook ESU include the following: 

• Obstructions to fish passage along the migration corridor and poor survival in the 

mainstem
 

• Habitat loss and degradation 

• Altered water temperatures and low river flows 

• High mortality from harvest activities 

• Predation 

Conservation Actions: 

Major accomplishments in 2002–2004 for this ESU include the following: 

• Accomplished structural and operational modification to hydropower system 

• Improved Federal land management practices – Land management plans of the U.S. 

Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management are being designed to protect and restore 

habitat. 

• Improved water quality permitting procedures by working with the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) to develop procedures that enhance salmon considerations 

• Conducted local habitat restoration and restoration of stream flows – This work includes 

efforts by the Northwest Power Planning Council Fish and Wildlife Program, Pacific 

Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund (PCSRF), Natural Resources Conservation Service 

(NRCS), 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 expected by Idaho and the Nez Perce Tribe in 2005. 

• Equipped hundreds of irrigation diversions with fish screens 

42 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

• Reduced overall harvest rates 

• Conducted conservation efforts at hatcheries 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

Priority recovery actions needed for this ESU include: 

• Improve survival in the migration corridor. Restoring the migration corridor, including 

the estuary, to a more normative ecological function would increase survival above the 

current 52.5 percent of juvenile migrants (including those transported around barriers), 

potentially to as high as 78.6 percent survival. 

• 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. 

• Further reduce mortality from harvest activities. 

• Control predation. 

Recovery Priority Number: 1 

With a high magnitude of threat, high recovery potential, and the presence of conflict, this ESU 

has been assigned a recovery priority number of one. The magnitude of threat to this ESU has 

been classified as high, because of strong risks to its abundance, productivity, spatial structure, 

and diversity (which largely have persisted since its status was first reviewed), and the fact that 

this ESU faces a strong extinction risk in the foreseeable future. This ESU does not meet the 

criteria for a moderate magnitude of threat (which stipulate that the species will not face 

extinction if recovery is temporarily held off, although there is a continuing population decline or 

threat to its habitat). Delaying recovery for this ESU would likely result in mounting extinction 

risks rather than maintaining the status quo level of risk. The recovery potential for this ESU has 

also been classified as high. Although numerous factors limit the recovery of this ESU, the 

source of these factors and their demographic impacts are relatively well understood and 

recovery planning is currently under way. Although it may be cost-prohibitive to completely 

address every limiting factor, it is likely the integrated reduction of most threats can achieve 

recovery of this ESU. Finally, as a complex variety of activities and management practices 

continue to impact the conservation and recovery of all Pacific salmon ESUs listed under the 

ESA, NMFS has determined “conflict” exists with regard to this ESU. Taken together, these 

three factors correspond to a recovery priority number of one. 

43 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

Upper Columbia River Spring-run Chinook ESU (Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha) 

Date Listed: March 24, 1999 

Legal Status: Endangered 

Recovery Plan Status: 

No recovery plan has been completed, but recovery planning is under way. 

• Phase I – Technical Recovery Teams have identified independent populations and 

completed the population viability guidelines and ESU recovery goals. 

• Phase II – Recovery planning has been initiated for this ESU. 

• A draft recovery plan for this ESU is expected by December 2005. 

Species Status: 

The estimated historical abundance of the Upper Columbia River spring-run Chinook ESU is 

6,450. The recent mean abundance of this ESU is 620. Since the time of listing or first review 

for this ESU, its productivity has improved, and its population abundance has improved. 

Threats and Impacts: 

Threats and impacts to the Upper Columbia River spring-run Chinook ESU include the 

following: 

• Obstructions to fish passage along the migration corridor 

• Habitat loss and degradation 

• Altered water temperatures and low river flows 

Conservation Actions: 

Major accomplishments in 2002–2004 for this ESU include the following: 

• Accomplished hydropower operational changes 

• Conducted and facilitated local habitat restoration and protection projects – Conservation 

easements and land purchases of riparian areas along rivers and streams have been used 

to protect critical spawning and rearing areas; the Natural Resources Conservation 

Service (NRCS) conservation reserve and enhancement program protects riparian areas 

on farms and ranches. 

• Equipped 16 to 18 irrigation diversion withdrawals with screens, leading to greater 

productivity and abundance 

• Conducted complex negotiations each season through U.S. v. Oregon to direct Columbia 

River harvest rates and fishery structure for the protection of listed Chinook salmon 

• Implemented continued improvements in juvenile and adult passage, significant 

improvements in hatchery programs to benefit salmon conservation, and substantial 

habitat actions in the tributaries of the Columbia River under the Mid Columbia Habitat 

Conservation Plan (HCP) 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

Priority recovery actions needed for this ESU include the following: 

• Protect high-quality habitat. 

44 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

• Improve fish passage at barriers along the migration corridor. 

• Improve flow management. 

• Restore habitat and increase habitat complexity. 

Recovery Priority Number: 1 

With a high magnitude of threat, high recovery potential, and the presence of conflict, this ESU 

has been assigned a recovery priority number of one. The magnitude of threat to this ESU has 

been classified as high, because of strong risks to its abundance, productivity, spatial structure, 

and diversity (which largely have persisted since its status was first reviewed), and the fact that 

this ESU faces a strong extinction risk in the foreseeable future. This ESU does not meet the 

criteria for a moderate magnitude of threat (which stipulate that the species will not face 

extinction if recovery is temporarily held off, although there is a continuing population decline or 

threat to its habitat). Delaying recovery for this ESU would likely result in mounting extinction 

risks rather than maintaining the status quo level of risk. The recovery potential for this ESU has 

also been classified as high. Although numerous factors limit the recovery of this ESU, the 

source of these factors and their demographic impacts are relatively well understood and 

recovery planning is currently under way. Although it may be cost-prohibitive to completely 

address every limiting factor, it is likely that integrated reduction of most threats can achieve 

recovery of this ESU. Finally, as a complex variety of activities and management practices 

continue to impact the conservation and recovery of all Pacific salmon ESUs listed under the 

ESA, NMFS has determined “conflict” exists with regard to this ESU. Taken together, these 

three factors correspond to a recovery priority number of one. 

45 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

Upper Willamette River Chinook ESU (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) 

Date Listed: March 24, 1999 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: 

No recovery plan has been completed, but recovery planning is under way. 

• Phase I – Technical Recovery Teams have identified independent populations and 

completed the population viability guidelines and ESU recovery goals. 

• Phase II – Recovery planning has been initiated for this ESU. 

• A draft recovery plan for this ESU is expected by December 2005. 

Species Status: 

The estimated historical abundance of the Upper Willamette River Chinook ESU is 300,000. 

The recent mean abundance of this ESU is 1,787. Since the time of listing or first review for this 

ESU, its productivity has remained unchanged, and its population abundance has remained 

unchanged. 

Threats and Impacts: 

Threats and impacts to the Upper Willamette River Chinook ESU include the following: 

• Reduced access to spawning and rearing because of hydropower systems 

• Altered water quality and temperature cause by tributary hydropower and development 

• Lost and degraded floodplain connectivity and lowland stream habitat (from 

hydropower/flood control, development, loss of large wood, and streambank hardening) 

• Altered streamflow (from tributary hydropower/flood control and water withdrawals) 

• Hatchery impacts 

Conservation Actions: 

Major accomplishments in 2002–2004 for this ESU include the following: 

• Improved harvest management – Selective fisheries have been designed to reduce 

impacts to wild fish by more than 75 percent, while retaining recreational and 

commercial fisheries. 

• Instituted hatchery reforms – Recent changes have helped develop locally adapted 

broodstocks and have reintroduced fish into habitats above impassable dams to explore 

the potential for reestablishing self-sustaining populations in those areas. 

• Facilitated improved dam management – The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has 

modified releases from its 13 multipurpose dams and reservoirs to benefit salmon; 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) relicensing settlements have improved 

salmon passage and survival at other hydropower projects. 

• Conducted local habitat restoration projects – Hundreds of projects during 2002–2004 

have improved riparian areas, fish passage at barriers, and stream function. Some local 

governments have also upgraded their ordinances to offer greater habitat protection. 

• Improved forest management practices on Federal lands – The Northwest Forest Plan 

Aquatic Conservation Strategy is designed to conserve and restore salmon and steelhead 

habitat, and provides an anchor for Federal lands’ contribution to salmon recovery. 

46 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

Priority recovery actions needed for this ESU include the following: 

• Provide fish passage at Federal dams, private dams, and small passage blockages. Dams 

operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers block access to most historical spawning 

habitat for this ESU, forcing fish to spawn in lower-quality, accessible habitat. A number 

of private dams, road crossings, and culverts also block or impede fish passage. 

• Improve water quality by retrofitting large Federal dams to provide more normative 

temperature regimes downstream. Reduce point and non-point sources of thermal and 

toxic pollution and continue to clean up contaminated stream reaches. 

• Conduct habitat restoration, particularly in lowland floodplain stream reaches where 

channel complexity and floodplain connectivity are severely degraded. Lack of quality 

rearing habitat in these reaches, which are predominantly surrounded by private land, is a 

major limiting factor for this ESU. Stream restoration in forested reaches and the lower 

mainstem Willamette River and its tributaries would also be beneficial. 

• Improve flow management at Federal and private dams to ensure safe migration, rearing, 

spawning, and incubation conditions for Chinook salmon. Establish minimum instream 

flows in tributaries with excessive water withdrawals that limit water availability and 

therefore affect salmon migration and reproduction. 

• Continue improving management of hatchery fish, especially by improving hatchery 

collection facilities that currently injure, delay, and kill listed fish. Consider using 

hatchery fish to reestablish naturally self-sustaining Chinook populations above Federal 

dams. 

Recovery Priority Number: 1 

With a high magnitude of threat, high recovery potential, and the presence of conflict, this ESU 

has been assigned a recovery priority number of one. The magnitude of threat to this ESU has 

been classified as high, because of strong risks to its abundance, productivity, spatial structure, 

and diversity (which largely have persisted since its status was first reviewed), and the fact that 

this ESU faces a strong extinction risk in the foreseeable future. This ESU does not meet the 

criteria for a moderate magnitude of threat (which stipulate that the species will not face 

extinction if recovery is temporarily held off, although there is a continuing population decline or 

threat to its habitat). Delaying recovery for this ESU would likely result in mounting extinction 

risks rather than maintaining the status quo level of risk. The recovery potential for this ESU has 

also been classified as high. Although numerous factors limit the recovery of this ESU, the 

source of these factors and their demographic impacts are relatively well understood and 

recovery planning is currently under way. Although it may be cost-prohibitive to completely 

address every limiting factor, it is likely that integrated reduction of most threats can achieve 

recovery of this ESU. Finally, as a complex variety of activities and management practices 

continue to impact the conservation and recovery of all Pacific salmon ESUs listed under the 

ESA, NMFS has determined “conflict” exists with regard to this ESU. Taken together, these 

three factors correspond to a recovery priority number of one. 

47 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

Columbia River Chum ESU (Oncorhynchus keta) 

Date Listed: March 25, 1999 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: 

No recovery plan has been completed, but recovery planning is under way. 

• Phase I – Technical Recovery Teams have identified independent populations and 

completed the population viability guidelines and ESU recovery goals. 

• Phase II – Recovery planning has been initiated for this ESU. 

• Washington’s Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board completed a plan for the 

Washington portion of this ESU in December 2004. This plan will be released by NMFS 

for public comment in 2005. Once these comments are incorporated, the plan will be used 

as an interim recovery plan pending completion of the Oregon portion. 

Species Status: 

The estimated historical abundance of the Columbia River chum ESU is 500,000. The recent 

mean abundance of this ESU is 755. Since the time of listing or first review for this ESU, its 

productivity has improved, and its population abundance has improved. 

Threats and Impacts: 

Threats and impacts to the Columbia River chum ESU include the following: 

• Altered channel form and stability in tributaries (from forest practices, agriculture, and 

development) 

• Excessive sediment in tributary spawning gravels (from forest practices, agriculture, and 

development) 

• Altered stream flow in tributaries and the mainstem (from hydropower and water supply 

operations) 

• Loss of some habitat types in tributaries 

• Harassment of spawners in tributaries and the mainstem Columbia River (by humans and 

livestock) 

Conservation Actions: 

Major accomplishments for this ESU in 2002–2004 include the following: 

• Maintained hydropower operational changes established in 2000 – Federal hydrosystem 

flow operations continued to be managed to optimize mainstem Columbia River chum 

habitat through the fall and winter spawning and incubation periods, while conserving 

water to support spring and summer juvenile migrants from other ESUs. 

• Conducted habitat restoration projects – Federal, state, and local governments and private 

entities carried out several habitat restoration projects to increase natural production and 

add to the ESU’s spatial structure, helping to protect against catastrophic loss. 

• Improved forest management practices on Federal lands and some state and private lands 

– The Northwest Forest Plan Aquatic Conservation Strategy was continued, and is 

designed to conserve and restore salmon and steelhead habitat and provide an anchor for 

Federal lands’ contribution to salmon recovery. Implementation of forest practices 

48 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

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 lands in 

Washington State. 

• Developed “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 a draft recovery plan for the Washington portion of this ESU – This plan was 

completed by the Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board in December 2004; NMFS will 

make it available for comment in 2005. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

Priority recovery actions needed for this ESU include: 

• Monitor and evaluate the effects of a mainstem hydrosystem flow management strategy 

(reverse-load factoring) at spawning areas below Bonneville Dam. The strategy could 

cause delay and prespawning mortality. 

• Restore and protect natural channel processes at additional tributary sites. On-site work 

will include reconnecting lower tributary mainstems with side channels and flood plains. 

• Restore historical populations in Columbia River tributaries where there is currently no 

known spawning activity. 

• Conduct restoration projects to increase shallow water rearing habitat in the lower 

Columbia River, and monitor and evaluate to determine how much additional restoration 

is needed. 

• Develop land and water use practices that avoid continued degradation and loss of chum 

spawning and rearing habitat. 

Recovery Priority Number: 1 

With a high magnitude of threat, high recovery potential, and the presence of conflict, this ESU 

has been assigned a recovery priority number of one. The magnitude of threat to this ESU has 

been classified as high, because of strong risks to its abundance, productivity, spatial structure, 

and diversity (which largely have persisted since its status was first reviewed), and the fact that 

this ESU faces a strong extinction risk in the foreseeable future. This ESU does not meet the 

criteria for a moderate magnitude of threat (which stipulate that the species will not face 

extinction if recovery is temporarily held off, although there is a continuing population decline or 

threat to its habitat). Delaying recovery for this ESU would likely result in mounting extinction 

risks rather than maintaining the status quo level of risk. The recovery potential for this ESU has 

also been classified as high. Although numerous factors limit the recovery of this ESU, the 

source of these factors and their demographic impacts are relatively well understood and 

recovery planning is currently under way. Although it may be cost-prohibitive to completely 

address every limiting factor, it is likely that integrated reduction of most threats can achieve 

recovery of this ESU. Finally, as a complex variety of activities and management practices 

continue to impact the conservation and recovery of all Pacific salmon ESUs listed under the 

ESA, NMFS has determined “conflict” exists with regard to this ESU. Taken together, these 

three factors correspond to a recovery priority number of one. 

49 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

Hood Canal Summer-run Chum ESU (Oncorhynchus keta) 

Date Listed: March 25, 1999 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: 

No recovery plan has been completed, but recovery planning is under way. 

• Phase I – Technical Recovery Teams have identified independent populations and 

completed the population viability guidelines and ESU recovery goals. 

• Phase II – Recovery planning has been initiated for this ESU. 

• A draft recovery plan for this ESU is expected by December 2005. 

Species Status: 

The estimated historical abundance of the Hood Canal summer-run chum ESU is 40,000. The 

recent mean abundance of this ESU is 6,500. Since the time of listing or first review for this 

ESU, its productivity has improved, and its population abundance has improved. 

Threats and Impacts: 

Threats and impacts to the Hood Canal summer-run chum ESU include the following: 

• Habitat loss and degradation 

• Poor water quality 

Conservation Actions: 

Major accomplishments in 2002–2004 for this ESU include the following: 

• Reduced impacts from harvest activities 

• Conducted collaborative habitat restoration efforts with the Washington Department of 

Fish and Wildlife and the Point No Point Treaty Council; projects in the 

Jimmycomelately Creek in partnership with the Jamestown S’Klallam tribes; and other 

projects in the Snow/Salmon, Chimacum, Tahuya, and Dewatto watersheds 

• Conducted conservation efforts at hatcheries, including 115 proposed individual Hatchery 

and Genetic Management Plans (HGMPs) to help hatchery programs conserve this ESU. 

• Implemented the Puget Sound Harvest Management Plan – The plan establishes an 

annual fishing regime designed to minimize incidental take of summer chum salmon, 

while providing an opportunity for fisheries conducted for other species. The regime 

includes complete closure of some terminal fisheries, non-retention of summer chum, and 

gear restrictions. 

• Implemented the upgraded Forest Practice Rules to reduce impacts on salmon habitat 

from forestry activities 

• Issued a 4(d) limit for the Washington State Department of Transportation Routine Road 

Maintenance activities – The limit is implemented by local governments. 

• Completed several sections of a draft salmon recovery plan – The Hood Canal 

Coordinating Council completed these sections of the plan.
 

50 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

Conservation and recovery actions needed for this ESU include the following: 

• Restore degraded floodplain and channel structure. 

• Restore and protect estuarine habitat. 

• Restore degraded riparian forest and enhance large woody debris recruitment. 

• Restore natural sediment routing processes. 

• Restore natural hydrologic processes and improve flow management. 

• Continue to improve hatchery and harvest management. 

Recovery Priority Number: 1 

With a high magnitude of threat, high recovery potential, and the presence of conflict, this ESU 

has been assigned a recovery priority number of one. The magnitude of threat to this ESU has 

been classified as high, because of strong risks to its abundance, productivity, spatial structure, 

and diversity (which largely have persisted since its status was first reviewed), and the fact that 

this ESU faces a strong extinction risk in the foreseeable future. This ESU does not meet the 

criteria for a moderate magnitude of threat (which stipulate that the species will not face 

extinction if recovery is temporarily held off, although there is a continuing population decline or 

threat to its habitat). Delaying recovery for this ESU would likely result in mounting extinction 

risks rather than maintaining the status quo level of risk. The recovery potential for this ESU has 

also been classified as high. Although numerous factors limit the recovery of this ESU, the 

source of these factors and their demographic impacts are relatively well understood and 

recovery planning is currently under way. Although it may be cost-prohibitive to completely 

address every limiting factor, it is likely that integrated reduction of most threats can achieve 

recovery of this ESU. Finally, as a complex variety of activities and management practices 

continue to impact the conservation and recovery of all Pacific salmon ESUs listed under the 

ESA, NMFS has determined “conflict” exists with regard to this ESU. Taken together, these 

three factors correspond to a recovery priority number of one. 

51 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

Oregon Coast Coho ESU (Oncorhynchus kisutch) 

Date Listed: August 10, 1998; June 14, 2004 (proposed)
 

Legal Status: Proposed Threatened 

The Oregon Coast coho ESU was listed as threatened on August 10, 1998. On February 24, 

2004, a court order set aside ESA protection for this ESU. This ESU is currently proposed for 

relisting as a threatened species, as published in a proposed rule on June 14, 2004. 

Recovery Plan Status: 

No recovery plan has been completed, but recovery planning is under way. 

• Phase I – Technical Recovery Teams have identified independent populations. The 

population viability guidelines and ESU recovery goals for this ESU will be completed in 

June 2005. 

• Phase II – Recovery planning has been initiated for this ESU. 

• A draft recovery plan for this ESU is expected by December 2005. 

Species Status: 

The estimated historical abundance of the Oregon Coast coho ESU is 1.5 million. The recent 

mean abundance of this ESU is 86,474. Since the time of first review for this ESU, its 

productivity has improved, and its population abundance has improved. 

Threats and Impacts: 

Threats and impacts to the Oregon coast coho ESU include the following: 

• Habitat degradation and loss 

• Reduced habitat complexity 

• Limited habitat capacity for juvenile rearing 

Conservation Actions: 

Major accomplishments in 2002–2004 for this ESU include the following: 

• Conducted habitat restoration efforts – The State of Oregon, Tribal governments, cities 

and counties, local watershed councils, private landowners, and projects funded through 

the NOAA Restoration Center opened 237 stream miles of habitat (by removing or 

upgrading 227 blockages through fish passage projects), installed fish screens, restored 

wetlands, fenced and planted riparian areas, and added large wood to streams to improve 

spawning and rearing habitat. 

• Improved forest management practices on Federal lands – The Northwest Forest Plan 

Aquatic Conservation Strategy is designed to conserve and restore salmon and steelhead 

habitat, and provides an anchor for coho salmon recovery. ESA section 7 consultations 

with the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management improved land 

management actions to protect and restore habitat. 

• Achieved substantial reductions in mortality from harvest activities – The State of 

Oregon continued to implement ocean and freshwater fisheries in accordance with 

Amendment 13 of the Pacific Fisheries Management Council’s Pacific Salmon Plan. 

• Implemented hatchery reforms – Oregon significantly decreased the number of hatchery 

coho smolts released in coastal rivers. Hatchery and Genetic Management Plans are 

52 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

being developed and will reduce impacts to (and may help with conservation of) coho 

salmon. 

• Coordinated with the State of Oregon on the adoption of its Native Fish Conservation 

policy – This is a science-based process for managing fisheries, hatcheries and habitat. 

• Improved road maintenance on state and private forest lands 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

Priority recovery actions needed for this ESU include the following: 

• Continue to evaluate implementation of Amendment 13 of the Pacific Salmon Plan 

addressing fishery harvest impacts. 

• Finalize and implement Hatchery and Genetic Management Plans for the remaining 

hatcheries in the ESU. 

• Continue to identify and remove fish passage barriers in high-priority coho spawning and 

rearing habitat. 

• Protect habitat through implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan’s Aquatic 

Conservation Strategy and continued ESA consultations with Federal agencies. 

• Protect and restore habitat by fencing and planting riparian areas, placing large wood in 

streams to trap sediment and increase habitat complexity, and protecting and restoring 

off-channel winter rearing habitat in floodplains and tributaries. Also, protect beaver 

populations to increase coho habitat created by beaver activity in coastal areas. 

• Continue to protect and restore habitat through actions by local watershed councils and 

landowners. 

Recovery Priority Number: 1 

With a high magnitude of threat, high recovery potential, and the presence of conflict, this ESU 

has been assigned a recovery priority number of one. The magnitude of threat to this ESU has 

been classified as high, because of strong risks to its abundance, productivity, spatial structure, 

and diversity (which largely have persisted since its status was first reviewed), and the fact that 

this ESU faces a strong extinction risk in the foreseeable future. This ESU does not meet the 

criteria for a moderate magnitude of threat (which stipulate that the species will not face 

extinction if recovery is temporarily held off, although there is a continuing population decline or 

threat to its habitat). Delaying recovery for this ESU would likely result in mounting extinction 

risks rather than maintaining the status quo level of risk. The recovery potential for this ESU has 

also been classified as high. Although numerous factors limit the recovery of this ESU, the 

source of these factors and their demographic impacts are relatively well understood and 

recovery planning is currently under way. Although it may be cost-prohibitive to completely 

address every limiting factor, it is likely that integrated reduction of most threats can achieve 

recovery of this ESU. Finally, as a complex variety of activities and management practices 

continue to impact the conservation and recovery of all Pacific salmon ESUs listed under the 

ESA, NMFS has determined “conflict” exists with regard to this ESU. Taken together, these 

three factors correspond to a recovery priority number of one. 

53 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

Ozette Lake Sockeye ESU (Oncorhynchus nerka) 

Date Listed: March 25, 1999 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: 

No recovery plan has been completed, but recovery planning is under way. 

• Phase I – Technical Recovery Teams have identified independent populations and 

completed the population viability guidelines and ESU recovery goals. 

• Phase II – Recovery planning has been initiated for this ESU. 

• A draft recovery plan for this ESU is expected by December 2005. 

Species Status: 

The estimated historical abundance of the Ozette Lake sockeye ESU is 18,000. The recent mean 

abundance of this ESU is 1,108. Since the time of listing or first review for this ESU, the 

productivity and population abundance trends remain uncertain. 

Threats and Impacts: 

Threats and impacts to the Ozette Lake sockeye ESU include the following: 

• Loss of spawning habitat 

• Degradation of lake habitat 

• Altered flow regime in streams 

• Predation by marine mammals 

Conservation Actions: 

Major accomplishments in 2002–2004 for this ESU include the following: 

• Conducted conservation efforts at hatcheries 

• Accomplished a reduction of impacts from harvest activities 

• Approved the Washington State Department of Transportation’s Routine Road 

Maintenance 4(d) limit and its implementation by Clallam County 

• Implemented the upgraded Forestry Practice Rules, to which forestry activities are now 

subject 

• Contributed to a state-tribal joint research management plan – The Lake Ozette Sockeye 

Salmon Resource Management Plan (RMP) guides the State of Washington and the 

Makah Tribe activities to increase the number of naturally producing fish. 

• Implemented significant harvest management restrictions designed to protect Lake Ozette 

sockeye – No fisheries directed at Ozette Lake sockeye are planned until the population is 

recovered. 

• Conducted meetings of the Lake Ozette Steering Committee to develop technical 

information to support proposed recovery actions 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

Conservation and recovery actions needed for this ESU include the following: 

• Restore sediment routing processes. 

• Restore large woody debris recruitment and riparian habitat. 

54 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

• Restore degraded tributary and river habitat structure. 

• Control pinniped and mammal predation. 

• Restore natural river and lake hydrologic processes. 

• Improve forest management practices. 

Recovery Priority Number: 1 

With a high magnitude of threat, high recovery potential, and the presence of conflict, this ESU 

has been assigned a recovery priority number of one. The magnitude of threat to this ESU has 

been classified as high, because of strong risks to its abundance, productivity, spatial structure, 

and diversity (which largely have persisted since its status was first reviewed), and the fact that 

this ESU faces a strong extinction risk in the foreseeable future. This ESU does not meet the 

criteria for a moderate magnitude of threat (which stipulate that the species will not face 

extinction if recovery is temporarily held off, although there is a continuing population decline or 

threat to its habitat). Delaying recovery for this ESU would likely result in mounting extinction 

risks rather than maintaining the status quo level of risk. The recovery potential for this ESU has 

also been classified as high. Although numerous factors limit the recovery of this ESU, the 

source of these factors and their demographic impacts are relatively well understood and 

recovery planning is currently under way. Although it may be cost-prohibitive to completely 

address every limiting factor, it is likely that integrated reduction of most threats can achieve 

recovery of this ESU. Finally, as a complex variety of activities and management practices 

continue to impact the conservation and recovery of all Pacific salmon ESUs listed under the 

ESA, NMFS has determined “conflict” exists with regard to this ESU. Taken together, these 

three factors correspond to a recovery priority number of one. 

55 
 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

Snake River Sockeye ESU (Oncorhynchus nerka) 

Date Listed: November 20, 1991 

Legal Status: Endangered 

Recovery Plan Status: 

A draft plan was developed in March 1995, but was not adopted. No recovery plan has been 

completed, but recovery planning is under way. 

• Phase I – Technical Recovery Teams have identified independent populations and 

completed the population viability guidelines and ESU recovery goals. 

• Phase II – Recovery planning has been initiated for this ESU. 

• A draft recovery plan for this ESU is expected by December 2005. 

Species Status: 

The estimated historical abundance of this ESU is 4,400. The recent mean abundance of the 

Snake River sockeye ESU is 4. Since the time of listing or first review for this ESU, its 

productivity has improved, and its population abundance has improved. 

Threats and Impacts: 

Threats and impacts to the Snake River sockeye ESU include the following: 

• Obstructions to fish passage along the migration corridor 

• Poor survival in the mainstem 

• Habitat loss and degradation 

• Altered water temperatures and low river flow 

• High mortality from harvest activities – There may be some harvest in the Zone 6 gillnet 

fishery. 

• Predation 

Conservation Actions: 

Major accomplishments in 2002–2004 for this ESU include the following: 

• Accomplished structural and operational modification to hydropower system 

• Improved Federal land management practices – Land management plans of the U.S. 

Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management are being designed to protect and restore 

habitat. 

• Improved water quality permitting procedures by working with EPA to develop 

procedures that enhance salmon considerations 

• Conducted local habitat restoration and restoration of stream flows – This work includes 

efforts by the Northwest Power Planning Council Fish and Wildlife Program, Pacific 

Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund (PCSRF), Natural Resources Conservation Service 

(NRCS), and the NOAA Restoration Center. 

• Equipped hundreds of irrigation diversions with fish screens 

• Worked to improve water quantity via the Snake River basin adjudication settlement of 

water claims between the Nez Perce Tribe and the State of Idaho, including a program to 

improve instream flows in the Lemhi River – This was approved by Congress in late 

2004, and expected by Idaho and the Nez Perce Tribe in 2005. 

56 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

• Reduced overall harvest rates 

• Conducted conservation efforts at hatcheries – The captive broodstock program produces 

200,000 embryos annually. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

Priority recovery actions needed for this ESU include the following: 

• Improve survival in the migration corridor by increasing or maintaining necessary water 

flows for smolts, and by transporting adults to natal lakes. Maintaining discharges of 80 

to 100 percent of mean May Salmon River flows for smolts is likely to result in an 

approximate 20 percent increase in downstream sockeye salmon detections. The current 

trend of poor adult survival from Lower Granite Dam (LGD) upstream to Sawtooth Basin 

spawning areas poses a severe threat to sockeye salmon survival. Adult trapping at LGD 

and subsequent transport to natal lakes would provide a marked increase in survival and 

potentially boost natural production. 

• 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. 

• Further reduce mortality from harvest activities; actual harvest rates over the past 5 years 

have ranged between 5 and 15 percent of the run each year. 

• Control predation. 

Recovery Priority Number: 1 

With a high magnitude of threat, high recovery potential, and the presence of conflict, this ESU 

has been assigned a recovery priority number of one. The magnitude of threat to this ESU has 

been classified as high, because of strong risks to its abundance, productivity, spatial structure, 

and diversity (which largely have persisted since its status was first reviewed), and the fact that 

this ESU faces a strong extinction risk in the foreseeable future. This ESU does not meet the 

criteria for a moderate magnitude of threat (which stipulate that the species will not face 

extinction if recovery is temporarily held off, although there is a continuing population decline or 

threat to its habitat). Delaying recovery for this ESU would likely result in mounting extinction 

risks rather than maintaining the status quo level of risk. The recovery potential for this ESU has 

also been classified as high. Although numerous factors limit the recovery of this ESU, the 

source of these factors and their demographic impacts are relatively well understood and 

recovery planning is currently under way. Although it may be cost-prohibitive to completely 

address every limiting factor, it is likely that integrated reduction of most threats can achieve 

recovery of this ESU. Finally, as a complex variety of activities and management practices 

continue to impact the conservation and recovery of all Pacific salmon ESUs listed under the 

ESA, NMFS has determined “conflict” exists with regard to this ESU. Taken together, these 

three factors correspond to a recovery priority number of one. 

57 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

Lower Columbia River Steelhead ESU (Oncorhynchus mykiss) 

Date Listed: March 19, 1998 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: 

No recovery plan has been completed, but recovery planning is under way. 

• Phase I – Technical Recovery Teams have identified independent populations and 

completed the population viability guidelines and ESU recovery goals. 

• Phase II – Recovery planning has been initiated for this ESU. 

• Washington’s Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board completed a plan for the 

Washington portion of this ESU in December 2004. The plan will be released by NMFS 

for public comment in 2005. Once these comments are incorporated, it will be used as an 

interim recovery plan pending completion of the Oregon portion. 

Species Status: 

The estimated historical abundance of the Lower Columbia River steelhead ESU is 25,500. The 

recent mean abundance of this ESU is 4,050. Since the time of listing or first review for this 

ESU, its productivity has improved, and its population abundance has improved. 

Threats and Impacts: 

Threats and impacts to the Lower Columbia River steelhead ESU include the following: 

• Degraded floodplain and stream channel structure and function (from forest practices, 

agriculture, and development) 

• Reduced access to spawning and rearing habitat (from tributary hydropower systems) 

• Altered streamflow (from tributary hydropower systems) 

• Excessive sediment and elevated water temperature in tributaries (from forest practices, 

agriculture, and development) 

• Hatchery impacts (from programs releasing non-ESU steelhead) 

Conservation Actions: 

Major accomplishments for this ESU in 2002–2004 include the following: 

• Accomplished hydropower operational changes – NMFS began implementation of the 

Cowlitz River Settlement Agreement (under Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

relicensing) and completed the Lewis River Settlement Agreement. These agreements 

included reintroduction efforts to previously blocked habitat, improved flow releases, 

dam passage survival studies and plans for improvements, and habitat improvements. 

NMFS also began implementation of the Settlement Agreement for the Powerdale 

Hydroelectric Project, which will improve fish passage conditions in the Hood River and 

result in the removal of Powerdale Dam in 2010, and implementation of the Settlement 

Agreement for the Bull Run Hydroelectric Project, which will result in the removal of 

Marmot Dam in 2007 and restoration of unimpeded passage in the Sandy River. 

• Conducted local habitat restoration projects 

• Improved forest management practices on Federal lands and on some state and private 

lands – The Northwest Forest Plan Aquatic Conservation Strategy continued during 

58 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

2002–2004 , and is designed to conserve and restore salmon and steelhead habitat and 

provide an anchor for Federal lands’ contribution to salmon recovery. Implementation of 

forest practices rules 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 forest lands in Washington. 

• Instituted hatchery reforms to reduce the effects of hatcheries on naturally produced 

populations 

• Improved management of in-river fisheries through the implementation of Fisheries 

Management and Evaluation Plans designed to minimize impacts from fisheries on wild 

steelhead – Recent improvements include reductions in impacts to juvenile steelhead 

from resident trout fisheries; harvest impacts on wild steelhead have been reduced from a 

historical high of 75 percent to an overall impact of 8.5 percent of the population. 

• Completed a draft recovery plan for the Washington portion of this ESU – The plan was 

completed by the Lower Columbia River Recovery Board in December 2004. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

Priority recovery actions needed for this ESU include the following: 

• Provide fish passage at tributary dams and small passage blockages including road 

crossings and culverts blocking or impeding fish passage. Where fish passage efforts at 

tributary dams are under way, continue to improve juvenile and adult passage survival. 

• Improve flow management below tributary dams. Refine releases to enhance fish 

protection, which is an especially problematic issue during extreme low water years. 

• Improve land use practices affecting water quality, channel stability, and floodplain 

function to prevent further degradation of these habitat attributes and to protect existing 

habitat, especially in lowland stream reaches. Conduct habitat restoration to restore 

degraded water quality, channel stability, and floodplain function and associated 

watershed processes. 

• Further improve hatchery practices, including continued reform and management of 

hatchery programs releasing non-ESU steelhead to support selective fisheries, and the 

continued reintroduction of steelhead into historical habitat using appropriate hatchery 

stocks. 

• Improve ocean fisheries management. 

Recovery Priority Number: 1 

With a high magnitude of threat, high recovery potential, and the presence of conflict, this ESU 

has been assigned a recovery priority number of one. The magnitude of threat to this ESU has 

been classified as high, because of strong risks to its abundance, productivity, spatial structure, 

and diversity (which largely have persisted since its status was first reviewed), and the fact that 

this ESU faces a strong extinction risk in the foreseeable future. This ESU does not meet the 

criteria for a moderate magnitude of threat (which stipulate that the species will not face 

extinction if recovery is temporarily held off, although there is a continuing population decline or 

threat to its habitat). Delaying recovery for this ESU would likely result in mounting extinction 

risks rather than maintaining the status quo level of risk. The recovery potential for this ESU has 

also been classified as high. Although numerous factors limit the recovery of this ESU, the 

source of these factors and their demographic impacts are relatively well understood and 

recovery planning is currently under way. Although it may be cost-prohibitive to completely 

59 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

address every limiting factor, it is likely that integrated reduction of most threats can achieve 

recovery of this ESU. Finally, as a complex variety of activities and management practices 

continue to impact the conservation and recovery of all Pacific salmon ESUs listed under the 

ESA, NMFS has determined “conflict” exists with regard to this ESU. Taken together, these 

three factors correspond to a recovery priority number of one. 

60 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

Middle Columbia River Steelhead ESU (Oncorhynchus mykiss) 

Date Listed: March 25, 1999 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: 

No recovery plan has been completed, but recovery planning is under way. 

• Phase I – Technical Recovery Teams have identified independent populations and 

completed the population viability guidelines and ESU recovery goals. 

• Phase II – Recovery planning has been initiated for five populations of this ESU located 

in Washington, but not for the remaining populations of the ESU located in Oregon and 

Washington. 

• A draft recovery plan for this ESU is expected by December 2005 in two Washington 

river basins – the Yakima and Walla Walla River basins. A detailed outline of a recovery 

plan will be developed for the remaining 12 steelhead populations located in Washington 

and Oregon. 

Species Status: 

The estimated historical abundance of the Middle Columbia River steelhead ESU is 300,000. 

The recent mean abundance of this ESU is 9,013. Since the time of listing or first review for this 

ESU, its productivity has improved, and its population abundance has improved. 

Threats and Impacts: 

Threats and impacts to the Middle Columbia River Steelhead ESU include the following: 

• Obstructions to fish passage along the migration corridor 

• Habitat loss and degradation 

• Altered water temperatures and low river flows 

Conservation Actions: 

Major accomplishments in 2002–2004 for this ESU include the following: 

• Accomplished hydropower operational changes 

• Conducted local habitat restoration projects, including reconnecting streams and side 

channels (e.g., Wilson Creek, Yakima River and Castile Falls, and Klickitat River) – 

Conservation easements and land purchases of riparian areas along rivers and streams 

were used to protect critical spawning and rearing areas. The Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (NRCS) conservation reserve and enhancement program protects 

riparian areas on farms and ranches (e.g., the Walla Walla River Basin). 

• Conducted complex negotiations each season through U.S. v. Oregon to direct Columbia 

River harvest rates and fishery structure for the protection of listed steelhead 

• Equipped six to eight 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 

61 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

Priority recovery actions needed for this ESU include the following: 

• Protect high-quality habitat. 

• Improve fish passage at barriers along the migration corridor. 

• Improve management of river flows to benefit salmon. 

• Restore habitat and increase habitat complexity. 

Recovery Priority Number: 1 

With a high magnitude of threat, high recovery potential, and the presence of conflict, this ESU 

has been assigned a recovery priority number of one. The magnitude of threat to this ESU has 

been classified as high, because of strong risks to its abundance, productivity, spatial structure, 

and diversity (which largely have persisted since its status was first reviewed), and the fact that 

this ESU faces a strong extinction risk in the foreseeable future. This ESU does not meet the 

criteria for a moderate magnitude of threat (which stipulate that the species will not face 

extinction if recovery is temporarily held off, although there is a continuing population decline or 

threat to its habitat). Delaying recovery for this ESU would likely result in mounting extinction 

risks rather than maintaining the status quo level of risk. The recovery potential for this ESU has 

also been classified as high. Although numerous factors limit the recovery of this ESU, the 

source of these factors and their demographic impacts are relatively well understood and 

recovery planning is currently under way. Although it may be cost-prohibitive to completely 

address every limiting factor, it is likely that integrated reduction of most threats can achieve 

recovery of this ESU. Finally, as a complex variety of activities and management practices 

continue to impact the conservation and recovery of all Pacific salmon ESUs listed under the 

ESA, NMFS has determined “conflict” exists with regard to this ESU. Taken together, these 

three factors correspond to a recovery priority number of one. 

62 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

Snake River Basin Steelhead ESU (Oncorhynchus mykiss) 

Date Listed: August 18, 1997 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: 

No recovery plan has been completed, but recovery planning is under way. 

• Phase I – Technical Recovery Teams have identified independent populations and 

completed the population viability guidelines and ESU recovery goals. 

• Phase II – Recovery planning has been initiated for this ESU. 

• A draft recovery plan for this ESU is expected by December 2005. 

Species Status: 

The estimated historical abundance of the Snake River Basin steelhead ESU is over 82,000. The 

recent mean abundance of this ESU is 14,768. Since the time of listing or first review for this 

ESU, its productivity has remained unchanged, and its population abundance has remained 

unchanged. 

Threats and Impacts: 

Threats and impacts to the Snake River Basin steelhead ESU include the following: 

• Obstructions to fish passage along the migration corridor and poor survival in the 

mainstem
 

• Habitat loss and degradation 

• Altered water temperatures and low river flows 

• High mortality from harvest activities, particularly for B run 

• Predation 

Conservation Actions: 

Major accomplishments in 2002–2004 for this ESU include the following: 

• Accomplished structural and operational modification to hydropower system 

• Improved Federal land management practices – Land management plans of the U.S. 

Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management are being designed to protect and restore 

habitat. 

• Improved water quality permitting procedures by working with the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) to develop procedures that enhance salmon considerations 

• Conducted local habitat restoration and restoration of stream flows – This includes efforts 

by the Northwest Power Planning Council Fish and Wildlife Program, Pacific Coastal 

Salmon Recovery Fund (PCSRF), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and 

the NOAA Restoration Center, who have funded numerous projects to improve habitat 

conditions. 

• Equipped hundreds of irrigation diversions with fish screens 

• Reduced overall harvest rates 

• Conducted conservation efforts at hatcheries 

• Worked to improve water quantity via the Snake River basin adjudication settlement of 

water claims between the Nez Perce Tribe and the State of Idaho, including a program to 

63 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

improve instream flows in the Lemhi River – This was approved by Congress in late 

2004, and expected by Idaho and the Nez Perce Tribe in 2005. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

Priority recovery actions needed for this ESU include the following: 

• Improve survival in the migration corridor. Restoring the migration corridor, including 

the estuary, to a more normative ecological function would increase survival above the 

current 42.8 to 53.6 percent survival rate (including those transported around barriers), 

potentially to as high as 82.1 percent survival. 

• Continue the structural and operational modifications to hydropower dams to improve 

survival in the migration corridor. 

• Protect high-quality habitats. 

• Conduct habitat restoration. 

• Increase instream flows. Increasing instream flows in a large portion of the ESU would 

improve egg-to-smolt survival and aid migration. 

• Further reduce mortality from harvest activities, which is 7 to 8 percent of adults for Arun and 10 to 17 percent of adults for B-run. 

• Control predation. Reducing predation below the current 13 percent of the smolts that 

have already survived hundreds of miles of migration and eight hydropower systems 

would improve the chances of obtaining increases in adult returns for all populations. 

Recovery Priority Number: 1 

With a high magnitude of threat, high recovery potential, and the presence of conflict, this ESU 

has been assigned a recovery priority number of one. The magnitude of threat to this ESU has 

been classified as high, because of strong risks to its abundance, productivity, spatial structure, 

and diversity (which largely have persisted since its status was first reviewed), and the fact that 

this ESU faces a strong extinction risk in the foreseeable future. This ESU does not meet the 

criteria for a moderate magnitude of threat (which stipulate that the species will not face 

extinction if recovery is temporarily held off, although there is a continuing population decline or 

threat to its habitat). Delaying recovery for this ESU would likely result in mounting extinction 

risks rather than maintaining the status quo level of risk. The recovery potential for this ESU has 

also been classified as high. Although numerous factors limit the recovery of this ESU, the 

source of these factors and their demographic impacts are relatively well understood and 

recovery planning is currently under way. Although it may be cost-prohibitive to completely 

address every limiting factor, it is likely that integrated reduction of most threats can achieve 

recovery of this ESU. Finally, as a complex variety of activities and management practices 

continue to impact the conservation and recovery of all Pacific salmon ESUs listed under the 

ESA, NMFS has determined “conflict” exists with regard to this ESU. Taken together, these 

three factors correspond to a recovery priority number of one. 

64 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

Upper Columbia River Steelhead ESU (Oncorhynchus mykiss) 

Date Listed: August 18, 1997 

Legal Status: Endangered 

Recovery Plan Status: 

No recovery plan has been completed, but recovery planning is under way. 

• Phase I – Technical Recovery Teams have identified independent populations and 

completed the population viability guidelines and ESU recovery goals. 

• Phase II – Recovery planning has been initiated for this ESU. 

• A draft recovery plan for this ESU is expected by December 2005. 

Species Status: 

The estimated historical abundance of the Upper Columbia River steelhead ESU is 4,100. The 

recent mean abundance of this ESU is 1,252. Since the time of listing or first review for this 

ESU, its productivity has improved, and its population abundance has improved. 

Threats and Impacts: 

Threats and impacts to the Upper Columbia River steelhead ESU include the following: 

• Obstructions to fish passage along the migration corridor 

• Habitat loss and degradation 

• Altered water temperatures and low river flows 

Conservation Actions: 

Major accomplishments in 2002–2004 for this ESU include the following: 

• Accomplished hydropower operational changes 

• Worked to improve stream flows through water conservation, leases, and purchases in 

over-appropriated streams (where available water is insufficient to meet existing water 

rights) 

• Conducted complex negotiations each season through U.S. v. Oregon to direct Columbia 

River harvest rates and fishery structure for the protection of listed steelhead 

• Equipped 16 to 18 irrigation diversion withdrawals with screens, leading to greater 

productivity and abundance 

• Implemented continued improvements in juvenile and adult passage, significant 

improvements to hatchery programs to benefit listed salmon, and substantial habitat 

actions in the tributaries of the Columbia River under the Mid Columbia Habitat 

Conservation Plan (HCP) 

• 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 NRCS conservation reserve and enhancement program 

protects riparian areas on farms and ranches. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

Priority recovery actions needed for this ESU include the following: 

• Protect high-quality habitat. 

65 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

• Improve fish passage at barriers along the migration corridor. 

• Improve management of river flows to benefit salmon. 

• Restore habitat and increase habitat complexity. 

Recovery Priority Number: 1 

With a high magnitude of threat, high recovery potential, and the presence of conflict, this ESU 

has been assigned a recovery priority number of one. The magnitude of threat to this ESU has 

been classified as high, because of strong risks to its abundance, productivity, spatial structure, 

and diversity (which largely have persisted since its status was first reviewed), and the fact that 

this ESU faces a strong extinction risk in the foreseeable future. This ESU does not meet the 

criteria for a moderate magnitude of threat (which stipulate that the species will not face 

extinction if recovery is temporarily held off, although there is a continuing population decline or 

threat to its habitat). Delaying recovery for this ESU would likely result in mounting extinction 

risks rather than maintaining the status quo level of risk. The recovery potential for this ESU has 

also been classified as high. Although numerous factors limit the recovery of this ESU, the 

source of these factors and their demographic impacts are relatively well understood and 

recovery planning is currently under way. Although it may be cost-prohibitive to completely 

address every limiting factor, it is likely that integrated reduction of most threats can achieve 

recovery of this ESU. Finally, as a complex variety of activities and management practices 

continue to impact the conservation and recovery of all Pacific salmon ESUs listed under the 

ESA, NMFS has determined “conflict” exists with regard to this ESU. Taken together, these 

three factors correspond to a recovery priority number of one. 

66 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

Upper Willamette River Steelhead ESU (Oncorhynchus mykiss) 

Date Listed: March 25, 1999 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: 

No recovery plan has been completed, but recovery planning is under way. 

• Phase I – Technical Recovery Teams have identified independent populations and 

completed the population viability guidelines and ESU recovery goals. 

• Phase II – Recovery planning has been initiated for this ESU. 

• A draft recovery plan for this ESU is expected by December 2005. 

Species Status: 

The estimated historical abundance of the Upper Willamette River steelhead ESU is 15,000. The 

recent mean abundance of this ESU is 4,422. Since the time of listing or first review for this 

ESU, its productivity has improved, and its population abundance has improved. 

Threats and Impacts: 

Threats and impacts to the Upper Willamette River steelhead ESU include the following: 

• Reduced access to spawning and rearing habitats (from tributary hydropower and 

culverts) 

• Degraded water quality and altered temperature (from tributary hydropower and 

development) 

• Lost and degraded floodplain connectivity and lowland stream habitat (from 

hydropower/flood control, development, loss of large wood and riparian cover, and 

streambank hardening) 

• Altered streamflow (from tributary hydropower/flood control and water withdrawals) 

Conservation Actions: 

Major accomplishments in 2002–2004 for this ESU include the following: 

• Improved harvest management – Catch-and-release fisheries have substantially reduced 

the impacts to steelhead. 

• Instituted hatchery reforms to reduce the effects of non-native summer steelhead hatchery 

fish on native, naturally produced winter steelhead populations 

• Conducted local habitat restoration projects – Hundreds of projects during 2002–2004 

have improved riparian areas, fish passage at barriers, and stream function. Some local 

governments have also upgraded their ordinances to offer greater habitat protection. 

• Facilitated improved dam management – The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has 

modified releases from its 13 multipurpose dams and reservoirs to benefit steelhead; 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) relicensing settlements have improved 

steelhead passage and survival at other hydropower facilities. 

• Improved forest management practices on Federal lands – The Northwest Forest Plan 

Aquatic Conservation Strategy continued during the biennium and is designed to 

conserve and restore salmon and steelhead habitat and provide an anchor for Federal 

lands’ contribution to salmon recovery. 

67 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

Priority recovery actions needed for this ESU include the following: 

• Provide fish passage at Federal dams, private dams, and small blockages such as culverts. 

Dams operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers block access to most historical 

spawning habitat for this ESU, forcing fish to spawn in accessible but lower-quality 

habitat below the dams. A number of private dams, road crossings, and culverts also 

block or impede fish passage. 

• Improve flow management at Federal and private dams to ensure safe migration, rearing, 

spawning, and incubation conditions for steelhead, including allowing for habitatforming processes downstream of the dams. Establish minimum instream flows in 

tributaries where excessive water withdrawals limit water availability. 

• Conduct habitat restoration, particularly in lowland floodplain stream reaches where 

channel complexity and floodplain connectivity are severely degraded. Lack of quality 

rearing habitat in these reaches, which are predominantly surrounded by private land, is a 

major limiting factor for this ESU. Stream restoration in forested reaches and the lower 

mainstem Willamette River and its tributaries would also be beneficial 

• Reduce point and non-point sources of thermal and toxic pollution and continue to clean 

up contaminated stream reaches. Improve water quality by retrofitting large Federal 

dams to provide more normative temperature regimes downstream. 

• Continue improving management of non-native summer steelhead hatchery fish, 

especially by improving hatchery collection facilities that currently injure, delay, and kill 

ESA-listed fish. 

Recovery Priority Number: 1 

With a high magnitude of threat, high recovery potential, and the presence of conflict, this ESU 

has been assigned a recovery priority number of one. The magnitude of threat to this ESU has 

been classified as high, because of strong risks to its abundance, productivity, spatial structure, 

and diversity (which largely have persisted since its status was first reviewed), and the fact that 

this ESU faces a strong extinction risk in the foreseeable future. This ESU does not meet the 

criteria for a moderate magnitude of threat (which stipulate that the species will not face 

extinction if recovery is temporarily held off, although there is a continuing population decline or 

threat to its habitat). Delaying recovery for this ESU would likely result in mounting extinction 

risks rather than maintaining the status quo level of risk. The recovery potential for this ESU has 

also been classified as high. Although numerous factors limit the recovery of this ESU, the 

source of these factors and their demographic impacts are relatively well understood and 

recovery planning is currently under way. Although it may be cost-prohibitive to completely 

address every limiting factor, it is likely that integrated reduction of most threats can achieve 

recovery of this ESU. Finally, as a complex variety of activities and management practices 

continue to impact the conservation and recovery of all Pacific salmon ESUs listed under the 

ESA, NMFS has determined “conflict” exists with regard to this ESU. Taken together, these 

three factors correspond to a recovery priority number of one. 

68 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

Salmon Recovery Overlapping the Northwest and Southwest 

Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast Coho ESU 

(Oncorhynchus kisutch) 

Date Listed: May 6, 1997 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: 

No recovery plan has been completed, but recovery planning is under way. In 2002, NMFS 

began Phase I recovery planning for the Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast and the 

Oregon Coast coho ESUs (ONCC) through a Technical Recovery Team (TRT). The ONCC 

TRT was divided into two working groups, one addressing the Southern Oregon/Northern 

California Coast coho ESU and the other addressing the Oregon Coast coho ESU. 

The ONCC TRT has preliminarily identified 62 historical populations of Southern 

Oregon/Northern California Coast coho salmon, of which 27 are considered functionally 

independent and potentially independent, with all other coho populations dependent on others 

within the ESU. A draft report of these findings will be released for co-manager review and 

comments in 2005, with final units and viability analysis for each of the units within the ESU 

scheduled for release in late 2005. Phase II recovery planning has been initiated for this ESU. A 

draft recovery plan for this ESU is expected by December 2005. 

Species Status: 

The Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast coho ESU (SONC) 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 hatchery 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 Southern Oregon/Northern California coho ESU is 

150,000. The recent mean abundance of this ESU 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 SONC Coast 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. Indications of stronger 2001 salmon returns in several California 

populations (presumably due to favorable freshwater and ocean conditions) are encouraging but 

must be evaluated in the context of more than a decade of generally poor performance. Only 

69 
 

 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

three rivers have hatchery populations and natural populations are depressed throughout the 

range of the ESU. Although extant populations reside in all major river basins within the ESU, 

there is concern about the loss of local populations in the Trinity, Klamath, and Rogue River 

systems. The high hatchery production in these systems may mask trends in ESU population 

structure and pose risks to ESU diversity. The recent termination of several out-of-ESU 

hatcheries in California is expected to result in decreased risks to ESU diversity. NOAA's 

Biological Review Team (BRT) found moderately high risks for abundance and productivity 

VSP categories, with comparatively lower risk for spatial structure and diversity. 

The overall ESU trend since the time of listing or first review shows that productivity has 

remained unchanged, and population abundance has remained unchanged. 

Threats and Impacts: 

The Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast coho salmon ESU declined in abundance over 

the past several decades as a result of loss of, and damage or change to the natural environment. 

Water diversions for agriculture, flood control, domestic, and hydropower purposes have greatly 

reduced or eliminated historically accessible habitat and degraded the remaining habitat. 

Forestry, agriculture, mining, and urbanization have degraded, simplified, and fragmented 

habitat. The destruction or modification of estuarine areas has resulted in the loss of important 

rearing and migration habitats. Oregon wetlands are estimated to have diminished by one-third, 

and California wetlands by over 80 percent. Habitat fragmentation and loss of habitat 

complexity have also contributed to the decline of this ESU. Sedimentation from historic and 

current extensive and intensive land use activities 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 (CWA) by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the 1990s. 

The following limiting factors are prevalent throughout the range of this ESU and affect most 

populations. These limiting factors include: 

• Low overwinter and summer survival of juveniles 

• Limited smolt production 

• Low productivity1 

• Reduced spawning success 

• Limited spatial distribution 

Conservation Actions: 

Numerous conservation actions were conducted from 2002–2004 for Southern Oregon/Northern 

California ESU recovery and are detailed below. 

Agricultural Land Management Practices 

• Collaborated proactively with counties on General Plan Updates, Grading Ordinances, 

and Riparian Ordinances 

• Completed ESA section 7 Biological Opinions for all Land and Resource Management 

Plans (LRMPs) and associated activities (under the LRMPs) for all listed species found 

within each of the individual National Forest or Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

1

 Defined as: (recruits $ spawners-1) 

70 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

Resource Area – National Forest lands make up the majority of the headwater tributaries 

for the ESU, and account for approximately 60 percent of the total habitat for the 

Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast coho salmon ESU. 

• Contributed to the State of California Coho Recovery Plan – The State of California 

listed two California coho populations (from San Francisco Bay to the Oregon border) 

under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) in 2003. NMFS was an active 

member on the State of California’s two recovery teams that identified and addressed 

recovery needs of the species and habitat statewide. Over 700 conservation and 

regulatory recommendations in the plan cover a wide variety of land use activities 

throughout the range of California coho salmon, and over 200 more are related to 

agricultural practices within the Scott and Shasta rivers, which are tributaries to the 

Klamath River. 

ESA Section 7 Consultations 

• Conducted over 200 ESA section 7 consultations over the past 2 years with Federal 

action agencies that fund or carry out projects such as irrigation and water diversion, 

timber sales, watershed restoration, fish passage at barriers, gravel mining, grazing, and 

transportation projects throughout southern Oregon and northern California 

• Worked closely in 2004 with the Yurok Tribe in its development of a Tribal 4(d) rule 

covering their Tribal Resource Management Plan (TRMP) for Chinook and coho salmon 

– NMFS is preparing a Biological Opinion and NEPA determination of the effects of the 

Yurok Tribe TRMP on threatened Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast coho 

salmon. 

Gravel Mining 

• Applied the NMFS Southwest Region (SWR) Gravel Mining Guidelines entitled 

“Sediment Removal from Freshwater Salmonid Habitat: Guidelines to NMFS Staff for 

the Evaluation of Sediment Removal Actions from California Streams” 

• Continued collaboration with Humboldt, Del Norte, and Mendocino counties on the 

Humboldt, Del Norte and Mendocino Gravel Plans – Long-term sustained gravel mining 

plans have been, or are being, developed by these three northern California counties, 

which contain a substantial portion of the southern Oregon and northern California Coast 

ESU. 

Municipal and Agricultural Water Diversions 

• Developed “Guidelines for Maintaining Instream Flows to Protect Fisheries below Water 

Diversions,” which are used by NMFS and the California State Water Resources Control 

Board for flow standards when issuing water rights permits – The Governor of California 

recently signed into law an amendment to the California Water Code to adopt NMFS’ 

Instream Flow Guidelines. 

• Applied the Water Drafting Specifications, Guidelines for Salmonid Passage at Stream 

Crossings, Fish Screening Criteria for Anadromous Salmonids, and the Addendum to 

Fish Screening Criteria for Pumped Water Intakes 

• Continued working with the Bureau of Reclamation on the Klamath Project 10-Year 

Biological Opinion to ensure its Klamath Project operations and programs are consistent 

with the reasonable and prudent alternative, including development of a distribution 

71 
 

 

 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

schedule for the water bank, assistance in developing study plans and methodologies, and 

development of the structure for the Conservation Implementation Program to be 

achieved by 2012 

Summer Dams 

• Developed a database of summer dams and commenced proactive efforts to engage with 

landowners to minimize the effects of such dams 

• Implemented staff guidelines entitled “The Effects of Summer Dams on Salmon and 

Steelhead in California Coastal Watersheds & Recommendations for Mitigating Their 

Impacts” 

Timberland Management and Forest Conversions 

• Engaged in on-site reviews of timber operations, and implemented the “Salmonid 

Guidelines for Forest Practices” when evaluating non-Federal timber harvest operations 

• Implemented the Stewardship Non-Industrial Timber Management Plan program in 

negotiation with the State Board of Forestry to encourage and minimize regulatory 

burdens on small forest landowners operating under a stewardship philosophy (over 1 

million acres) – Private lands (non-industrial) make up a substantial portion of the range 

of this ESU. 

• Worked on the Pacific Lumber Company Habitat Conservation Plan (PALCO 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. 

• Held technical and policy discussions (in conjunction with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service) with the Green Diamond Resource Company regarding the development of a 

Habitat Conservation Plan for much of its industrial timber operations in northern 

California – The Green Diamond Resource Company prepared a draft Aquatic Habitat 

Conservation Plan/Candidate Conservation Agreement in support of its applications. 

Currently, NMFS is conducting an ESA section 7 consultation for all ESA-listed Pacific 

salmon in northern California. The Initial Plan Area includes 416,531 acres in Humboldt 

and Del Norte counties, of which 170,241 acres (40.9 percent) are in the lower Klamath 

River basin. 

Urbanization/Channelization 

• Conducted ESA section 7 consultations to minimize the effects of flood control projects, 

levee setbacks, and floodplain management on the ESU 

• Collaborated with Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District (HBMWD) on the 

development of a habitat conservation plan (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 – The HCP will be finalized once the 

“no surprises” rules are completed2

. 

2

 “No surprises” rules are assurances provided by the government to non-Federal landowners through ESA section 

10(a)(1)(B). Private landowners are assured that if "unforeseen circumstances" arise, NMFS and/or FWS will not 

require the commitment of additional land, water, or financial compensation or additional restrictions on the use of 

land, water, or other natural resources beyond the level otherwise agreed to in the HCP without the consent of the 

72 
 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

Restoration 

• Continued to provide annual grants to the State of California to assist recovery efforts in 

coastal watersheds as part of the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund program – 

NMFS assisted the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) in the development 

of ranking criteria to evaluate grant proposals and ensure that (1) Federal grant money is 

used for the purposes set forth by Congress and (2) there is a representative on the 

technical ranking committee for projects developed and submitted to this program for 

potential funding. These projects include a wide range of activities such as easements; 

road inventories and restoration; improvement of fish passage at barriers; public 

outreach; sediment source inventories and stabilization; fencing of riparian areas along 

streams; and species and habitat monitoring. Many of these projects have been 

implemented but will require some time before the benefits to the species are realized. 

• Participated as a member of the Trinity River Restoration Program Task Force – NMFS 

provided technical input during the preparation of the Trinity River flow study and 

habitat restoration plan, which includes flow allocations and direct in-channel actions, as 

well as continued watershed restoration activities, replacement of bridges and structures 

in the flood plain, monitoring, and adaptive management. 

• Continued efforts as a member of the 16-member Klamath Conservation Program Task 

Force, which provides technical and scientific input to restoration programs and projects 

throughout the Klamath River Basin 

• Consulted under ESA section 7 with the San Francisco District of the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers (ACOE) regarding ACOE’s issuance of a Regional General Permit (RGP) to 

the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) – The RGP is for restoration 

activities pursuant to CDFG’s “California Salmonid Stream Habitat Restoration Manual” 

and the resulting effects on ESA-listed salmon north of San Francisco to the Oregon 

border. This RGP authorizes CDFG (and the agents contracted, funded, and/or 

supervised by CDFG) to carry out fisheries habitat restoration program projects 

compliant with the manual. To date, more than 1,000 projects have been implemented, 

with hundreds of miles of Pacific salmon habitat being restored and available for use by 

juvenile and adult Pacific salmon. 

• Continued working closely with Resource Conservation Districts (RCDs) and Natural 

Resource Conservation Services (NRCSs) to help identify potential impacts to ESA 

species, to help develop measures to address the impacts, and to help obtain regulatory 

relief under the ESA 

• Continued working with the California Resource Agency and numerous state, local, and 

regional agencies; non-profit and stakeholder groups; and consultants as part of the State 

of California’s Fish Passage Forum – The Forum addresses man-made barriers to adult 

and juvenile salmon passage throughout California’s coastal rivers and streams. The 

Forum identified administrative, financial and technical impediments to addressing these 

issues, including information gaps, lack of watershed-level assessments and planning, 

and poorly coordinated project review and permitting processes. Group participants 

worked together to develop short- and long-term solutions to these impediments. The 

Forum continues to work to identify barriers; evaluate and prioritize restoration 

permittee. The government will honor these assurances as long as a permittee is implementing the terms and 

conditions of the HCP, permit, and other associated documents in good faith. 

73 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

opportunities; provide consistent barrier inventory data; and conduct training, public 

outreach, and education related to fish passage barriers. 

• Continued prohibition on recreational fishing for coho salmon throughout the central 

California coast – The conservation objective set by the Pacific Fishery Management 

Council for the past five seasons has been an overall ocean exploitation below 13 percent 

for CCC coho salmon. 

• Streamlined programs through programmatic strategies and developed best management 

practices for Federal, state, county, or city governments and private landowners for the 

benefit of salmon habitat – Some programmatic strategies and actions have been 

completed and others are currently under way. These include the following: 

∗ State of California Road Maintenance Manual 

∗ Bank Stabilization Guidelines 

∗ Gravel Mining Guidelines (completed in 2004) 

∗ Ground Water Management Guidelines 

∗ Water Development and Rights Policies 

∗ Minimum Flow Policies for dry seasons to ensure appropriate water temperatures 

and conditions (under way) 

∗ Desalination Management Policy and Timber Harvest Guidelines (completed in 

January 2005) 

• Worked with five northern California counties (Siskiyou, Trinity, Del Norte, Humboldt, 

and Mendocino) to develop a Memorandum of Understanding regarding the Five 

Counties Road Program – NMFS worked to develop a standardized county routine road 

maintenance manual to help protect ESA-listed species and their habitat. To date, the 

counties have identified over 400 juvenile and adult Pacific salmon barriers associated 

with county roads, identified over 1 million cubic yards of potentially deliverable 

sediment directly into ESA-listed salmonid habitats, and prioritized all restoration actions 

based on species priorities among all five counties. Over 30 high-priority projects have 

been completed, opening up over 100 miles of habitat that had been blocked for more 

than 50 years. Projects have also prevented thousands of cubic yards of sediment from 

directly entering salmon and steelhead streams. This plan was recently submitted by the 

counties to the NMFS Southwest Region for coverage under the ESA 4(d) rule process. 

NMFS is currently developing the Environmental Assessment under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for this plan. 

• Commenced collaboration with CDFG in the development of Hatchery and Genetics 

Management Plans (HGMPs) and Fisheries Management Evaluation Plans (FMEPs) for 

all hatcheries and fisheries programs located throughout northern California – It is 

anticipated that upon completion of these plans, programs will qualify for the ESA 4(d) 

rule exemption from ESA take violations. 

• Adopted the standards established in the Oregon Coho Plan for the Rogue River coho 

salmon HGMP, whose goal is to limit hatchery spawners to less than 10 percent of the 

spawning population – Due to the reduction in numbers of hatchery-produced coho 

salmon, coho strays and their impacts to wild coho populations are no longer considered 

a limiting factor in the Rogue River. 

74 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

Several priority recovery actions are needed for the Southern Oregon/Northern California coho 

salmon ESU, including the following: 

• Research and monitor distribution, status, and trends of salmon. 

• Complete and fund a population-monitoring plan. 

• Promote operations of current recovery hatcheries and develop HGMPs to minimize 

negative influences of hatcheries. 

• Improve freshwater habitat quantity and quality. 

• 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: 1 

In the NMFS Southwest Region, ranking for the Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast 

coho ESU was based on a high magnitude of threat, a high potential for recovery, and anticipated 

conflict with current and future land disturbance and water-associated development within the 

range of the ESU. The Biological Review Team (BRT) conducting an updated status review in 

2004 reiterated the same conclusions reached by a previous status review in 1995, stating that the 

SONC Coast coho ESU is “likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future.” This 

determination was made based on substantially low abundance from historical levels, as coho 

salmon populations occupy roughly 50 percent of their historic range. Long-term abundance 

trends are clearly down but stable on the Oregon side of the ESU, and there is concern for many 

lost coho populations within the larger river basins – namely the Rogue, Klamath, and Trinity 

rivers. Strong risks to the abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity of this ESU 

have largely persisted since its status was first reviewed, and the magnitude of threat for this 

ESU is high. The recovery potential for this ESU has also been classified as high. Although 

numerous factors limit the recovery of this ESU, the source of these factors and their 

75 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

demographic impacts are known and recovery planning is currently under way. Although it may 

be cost-prohibitive to completely address every limiting factor, it is likely that integrated 

reduction of most threats can achieve recovery of this ESU. Finally, as a complex variety of 

activities and management practices continue to impact the conservation and recovery of all 

Pacific salmon ESUs listed under the ESA, NMFS has determined “conflict” exists with regard 

to this ESU. Taken together, these three factors correspond to a recovery priority number of one. 

76 
 

 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

Salmon Recovery in the Southwest 

Northern California Steelhead ESU (Oncorhynchus mykiss) 

Date Listed: June 7, 2000 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: 

No recovery plan has been completed for this ESU, but recovery planning is under way. 

Species Status: 

The Northern California Steelhead ESU (NC) includes all naturally spawned populations of 

steelhead and their progeny in California streams from Redwood Creek south to the Gualala 

River (inclusive). Resident populations of O. mykiss that co-occur with anadromous populations 

below impassible barriers are included in the ESU. Two artificial propagation programs are also 

considered part of the ESU: the Yager Creek Hatchery and the North Fork Gualala River 

Hatchery. 

Little historical abundance information exists for the naturally spawning portion of the NC 

Steelhead ESU. Although data were relatively limited, analysis by the Biological Review Team 

(BRT) in the 2004 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 in the Mad River. The BRT also noted two 

major sources of uncertainty in the status review – lack of data on run sizes throughout the ESU 

and uncertainty about the genetic heritage of winter-run steelhead in the Mad River. Population 

trends for this ESU show a continuing decline in abundance. 

Threats and Impacts: 

The following limiting factors are prevalent throughout the ESU and affect most populations 

within the ESU: low over-winter and summer survival of juveniles; limited smolt production; 

low productivity1

; reduced spawning success; and limited spatial distribution throughout the 

ESU. 

The threats affecting these limiting factors are pervasive throughout the ESU and vary among 

populations within the ESU. Most of the threats are associated with habitat and water quantity 

and quality issues, which include the following: 

• Lack of side-channel, alcove, tributary, pool, and floodplain habitats for over-winter and 

summer survival of juveniles 

• Reduced riparian areas, including function and diversity of habitat types along all water 

courses 

1

 Defined as: (recruits $ spawners-1) 

77 
 

 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

• Decreased stream channel sinuosity2

 and habitat complexity due to excessive removal of 

habitat forming structures (e.g., large woody debris and boulders) and stream channel 

straitening for flood control purposes 

• Excessive sedimentation in stream channels from a variety of past and current land use 

activities that have filled in pools, covered spawning gravels and benthic invertebrates, 

and reduced flood flow capacity 

• Fragmentation of historic and current habitats due to human-caused barriers (e.g., dams, 

culverts, and bridges) 

• Negative impacts on steelhead and their habitat from water impoundments, hydroelectric 

facilities, push-up dams for small riparian diversions, surface and subsurface water 

withdrawals, and water conveyance and flood control systems – Many of the water 

facilities do not have fish passage facilities, and the few facilities with some adult 

passage capabilities have met with limited success. These blockages fragment historic 

and current steelhead habitat directly or indirectly due to their operations. 

• Inadequate screening of numerous water diversions to protect adult and juvenile salmon 

from being entrained into the diversions 

• Significant point and non-point source pollution, which can contribute pollutants such as 

heat and toxic substances into streams and rivers 

Conservation Actions: 

The Preliminary Recovery Strategy for this ESU is to ensure NMFS is fulfilling its obligation 

under the ESA to conserve and recover NC steelhead. NMFS focuses primarily on linking and 

coordinating ESA programs to recovery planning and developing stronger, more collaborative 

partnerships with other entities whose decisions affect salmon recovery options. Under this 

guidance, numerous conservation actions were conducted from 2002–2004 for NC steelhead 

ESU recovery and are detailed below. 

Agricultural Land Management Practices 

• Implemented the Fish Friendly Farming program, a multi-agency, third-party certification 

and technical assistance program for wine grape growers practicing best management 

practices (BMPs) 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 

• Contributed to the State of California Coho Recovery Plan – The State of California 

listed two California coho populations (from San Francisco Bay to the Oregon border) 

under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) in 2003. NMFS was an active 

member on the State of California’s two recovery teams that identified and addressed 

recovery needs of the species and habitat statewide. Each of the recovery teams 

developed conservation measures and identified necessary state regulatory changes for 

integration into a single statewide coho recovery plan, which the California Department 

of Fish and Game (CDFG) published in 2004. Over 700 conservation and regulatory 

2

 Stream channel sinuosity as defined by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is the ratio of the channel length 

between two points on a channel to the straight-line distance between the same two points – a measure of 

meandering. 

78 
 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

recommendations in the plan cover a wide variety of land use activities throughout the 

range of the NC steelhead ESU. 

ESA Section 7 Consultations 

• Conducted over 500 ESA section 7 consultations during the past 6 years with Federal 

action agencies throughout southern Oregon and northern California 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 

Gravel Mining 

• Applied the NMFS Southwest Region (SWR) Gravel Mining Guidelines, entitled 

“Sediment Removal from Freshwater Salmonid Habitat: Guidelines to NMFS Staff for 

the Evaluation of Sediment Removal Actions from California Streams” 

• Used these guidelines to conduct effects analyses of proposed actions that would remove 

sediment from streams, either for commercial sediment production or flood control 

channel excavation – This information helps staff identify adverse effects of sediment 

removal actions and provide reasonable and prudent alternative measures, as necessary. 

• Continued collaboration with Humboldt, Del Norte, and Mendocino counties and the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) on the Humboldt, Del Norte, and Mendocino 

Gravel Plans – Long-term sustained gravel mining plans have been, or are being, 

developed by these three northern California counties, which contain a substantial portion 

of the southern Oregon and northern California Coast ESUs. NMFS will work with the 

counties and the ACOE to ensure any Letters of Permission (LOPs) issued for gravel 

mining are protective of all ESA-listed Pacific salmon. 

Municipal and Agricultural Water Diversions 

• Developed “Guidelines for Maintaining Instream Flows to Protect Fisheries below Water 

Diversions,” which are used by NMFS and the California State Water Resources Control 

Board for flow standards when issuing water rights permits – The Governor of California 

recently signed into law an amendment to the California Water Code to adopt NMFS’ 

Instream Flow Guidelines. 

• Applied the Water Drafting Specifications, Guidelines for Salmonid Passage at Stream 

Crossings, Fish Screening Criteria for Anadromous Salmonids, and the Addendum to 

Fish Screening Criteria for Pumped Water Intakes 

Summer Dams 

• Developed a database of summer dams and commenced proactive efforts to engage with 

landowners to minimize the effects of such dams 

• Implemented staff guidelines, entitled “The Effects of Summer Dams on Salmon and 

Steelhead in California Coastal Watersheds & Recommendations for Mitigating Their 

Impacts” 

79 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

Timberland Management and Forest Conversions 

• Continued to engage with the Board of Forestry in public meetings, and presented 

information to the Board on specific areas in the Forestry Rules needing improvements 

based on Science Panel findings and field experience 

• Engaged in on-site reviews of timber operations, and used the “Salmonid Guidelines for 

Forest Practices” when evaluating non-Federal timber harvest operations 

• Implemented the Stewardship Non-Industrial Timber Management Plan program in 

negotiation with the State Board of Forestry to encourage and minimize regulatory 

burdens on small forest landowners operating under a stewardship philosophy (over 1 

million acres) 

• Conducted Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) negotiations with the Mendocino Redwood 

Company – A Planning Agreement is in place that includes riparian protections from 

timber harvest and other operating restrictions beneficial to salmon until the HCP is 

completed. 

Urbanization/Channelization 

• Conducted ESA section 7 consultations to minimize the effects of flood control projects, 

levee setbacks, and floodplain management on the ESU 

Restoration 

• Continued to provide annual grants to the State of California to assist recovery efforts in 

coastal watersheds as part of the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund – Assisted the 

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) in the development of ranking criteria 

to evaluate grant proposals and ensure that (1) Federal grant money is used for the 

purposes set forth by Congress and (2) there is a representative on the technical ranking 

committee for projects developed and submitted to this program for potential funding. 

These projects include a wide range of activities such as easements; road inventories and 

restoration; improvement of fish passage at barriers; public outreach; sediment source 

inventories and stabilization; fencing of riparian areas along streams; and species and 

habitat monitoring. Many of these projects have been implemented but will require some 

time before the benefits to the species are realized. 

• Consulted under ESA section 7 with the San Francisco District of ACOE regarding 

ACOE’s issuance of a Regional General Permit (RGP) to CDFG – The RGP is for 

restoration activities pursuant to CDFG’s “California Salmonid Stream Habitat 

Restoration Manual” and the resulting effects on ESA-listed salmon north of San 

Francisco to the Oregon border. This RGP authorizes CDFG (and the agents contracted, 

funded, and/or supervised by CDFG) to carry out fisheries habitat restoration program 

projects compliant with the manual. To date, more than 1,000 projects have been 

implemented, with hundreds of miles of Pacific salmon habitat being restored and 

available for use by juvenile and adult Pacific salmon. 

• Continued to collaborate with the California Conservation Corps, the CDFG, and other 

state and Federal agencies conducting anadromous salmonid and aquatic stream habitat 

restoration projects – These projects include fish passage barrier modifications, instream 

habitat projects, riparian tree planting, and up-slope sediment reduction projects. 

• Continued working with the California Resource Agency and numerous state, local, and 

regional agencies; non-profit and stakeholder groups; and consultants as part of the State 

80 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

of California’s Fish Passage Forum – The Forum addresses man-made barriers to adult 

and juvenile salmonid passage throughout California’s coastal rivers and streams. The 

Forum identified administrative, financial, and technical impediments to addressing these 

issues, including information gaps, lack of watershed-level assessments and planning, 

and poorly coordinated project review and permitting processes. Group participants 

worked together to develop short- and long-term solutions to these impediments. The 

Forum continues to work to identify barriers; evaluate and prioritize restoration 

opportunities; provide consistent barrier inventory data; and conduct training, public 

outreach, and education related to fish passage barriers. 

Hatchery and Genetics 

• Commenced collaboration with CDFG in the development of Hatchery and Genetics 

Management Plans (HGMPs) and Fisheries Management Evaluation Plans for all 

hatcheries and fisheries programs located throughout northern California – It is 

anticipated that upon completion of these plans, these programs would qualify for the 

ESA section 4(d) rules exempting them from take violations. NMFS has been working 

with several hatchery programs and CDFG to reduce the mortality of wild, native ESAlisted salmon that were in excess of the facilities’ spawning needs. 

• Implemented hatchery programs to control disease and minimize its effect on wild fish 

• Conducted pikeminnow eradication efforts 

Federal Efforts 

• Streamlined programs through programmatic strategies and developed best management 

practices for Federal, state, county, or city governments and private landowners for the 

benefit of steelhead habitat – Some programmatic strategies and actions have been 

completed and others are currently under way. These include the following: 

∗ State of California Road Maintenance Manual 

∗ Bank Stabilization Guidelines 

∗ Gravel Mining Guidelines (completed in 2004) 

∗ Ground Water Management Guidelines 

∗ Water Development and Rights Policies 

∗ Minimum Flow Policies for dry seasons to ensure appropriate water temperatures 

and conditions (under way) 

∗ Desalination Management Policy and Timber Harvest Guidelines (completed in 

January 2005) 

• Evaluated impacts to the NC steelhead ESU through numerous ESA section 7 

consultations, which have improved or minimized adverse impacts 

• Drafted an ESA section 6 agreement to support state recovery actions 

• Provided annual grants to the State of California through the Pacific Coastal Salmon 

Recovery Fund program to assist recovery efforts in coastal watersheds 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

Several priority recovery actions are needed for the Northern California steelhead ESU, 

including the following: 

• Research and monitor distribution, status, and trends of steelhead. 

81 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

• Promote operations of current recovery hatcheries and develop HGMPs 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. 

• Finalize the ESA section 6 agreement to support state recovery actions. 

• 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: 7 

Ranking for the Northern California steelhead (NC steelhead) ESU was based on a moderate 

degree of threat, a low-moderate recovery potential, and anticipated conflict with development 

projects or other economic activity. Although the Biological Review Team (BRT) in 2004 found 

a high risk for the abundance Viable Salmon Population (VSP) category and moderately high 

risk for the productivity category, spatial structure and diversity were comparatively of lesser 

concern. Lack of data for this ESU provides some uncertainty and, thus, this priority number 

will be evaluated in the future as the recovery plan is drafted. It is believed a moderate potential 

for recovery is possible for NC steelhead due to lack 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 NC steelhead. 

82 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

California Central Valley Steelhead ESU (Oncorhynchus mykiss) 

Date Listed: March 19, 1998 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: 

No recovery plan has been completed for this ESU, but recovery planning is under way. 

Species Status: 

The Central Valley steelhead ESU (CV) 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 ESU, and little information is available regarding the viability of the 

naturally spawning component of the CV ESU. Anadromous steelhead spawning above Red 

Bluff Diversion Dam (RBDD) have a small population size and exhibit strongly negative trends 

in abundance and population growth rate. No escapement estimates have been made for the area 

above RBDD since the mid-1990s. A crude extrapolation from the incidental catch of outmigrating juvenile steelhead (captured in a midwater-trawl sampling program for juvenile 

Chinook salmon below the confluence of the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers) estimated that, 

on average during 1998–2000, approximately 181,000 juvenile steelhead were naturally 

produced each year in the Central Valley by approximately 3,600 spawning female steelhead. 

Prior to 1850, there were 1 to 2 million spawners, and in the 1960s about 40,000 spawners. The 

Biological Review Team (BRT) reported that recent spawner surveys of small Sacramento River 

tributaries (Mill, Deer, Antelope, Clear, and Beegum creeks) and incidental captures of juvenile 

steelhead via monitoring on the Calaveras, Cosumnes, Stanislaus, Tuolumne, and Merced rivers 

confirmed that steelhead are abundant throughout accessible streams and rivers. 

Although steelhead appear to remain widely distributed in Sacramento River tributaries, the vast 

majority of historic spawning areas are currently located upstream of impassable dams. Coastal 

steelhead are widely distributed in the Central Valley basin, with approximately half of the 

available habitat upstream of impassable dams. At higher elevations, habitat appears to support 

high densities of steelhead. It is not evident how CV steelhead and resident populations 

interacted before these dams were built. Steelhead produced from hatcheries have been widely 

stocked throughout the CV, Sierra Nevada, and southern Cascades. Stocking may have 

deleterious effects on native wild populations. There are reports of native wild populations in 

some areas having received stocked fish. Identification of any particular resident populations 

that may be part of the CV ESU has not been possible due to the lack of sufficient status and 

trend data. 

Two artificial propagation programs are considered to be part of the CV steelhead ESU; 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. 

83 
 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

Informed by the BRT’s findings, and NMFS’ assessment of the effects of artificial propagation 

programs on the viability of the ESU, the Artificial Propagation Evaluation Workshop concluded 

that the California CV steelhead ESU altogether is “in danger of extinction.” 

Threats and Impacts: 

The CV steelhead ESU’s primary limiting factor is the inaccessibility of more than 95 percent of 

its historic spawning and rearing habitat due to impassable dams. Where steelhead are still 

extant, natural populations are subject to habitat degradation and various impacts from water 

development activities and land use activities. This ESU 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 ESU viability and our ability to determine 

how steelhead populations may have interacted before the dams were built. The geographically 

wide stocking of hatchery fish may have deleterious effects on native wild trout populations, but 

this cannot be assessed. It is likely many of the threats affecting Chinook salmon are also 

negatively impacting steelhead, such as inadequately screened water diversions, excessively high 

water temperatures, and predation by non-native species. 

Conservation Actions: 

During 2002–2004 , progress was made toward addressing some of the limiting factors and 

threats to this ESU, largely through ESA section 7 consultations and other ESA-related 

conservation efforts in the Central Valley. The Central Valley Project section 7 consultation 

with the Bureau of Reclamation likely contributed to habitat improvements benefiting the CV 

steelhead ESU, such as flow and temperature improvements. 

In addition, two large, comprehensive conservation programs in the Central Valley provide a 

wide range of ecosystem and species-specific protective efforts benefiting steelhead – the 

CALFED Bay-Delta Program and the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA). 

CALFED works with local communities to improve water quality and reliability for California’s 

water supplies, and to restore the San Francisco Bay-Delta ecosystem. Although not fully 

implemented, CALFED’s Ecosystem Restoration Program has funded projects involving habitat 

restoration; floodplain restoration and/or protection; instream habitat restoration; riparian habitat 

restoration/protection; fish screening and passage projects, research on and eradication of nonnative species, as well as on contaminants; research and monitoring of fishery resources; and 

watershed stewardship and outreach. The Environmental Water Account is used to offset losses 

of juvenile fish at the Delta pumps, and to provide higher instream flows in the Yuba, Stanislaus, 

American, and Merced rivers to benefit salmonids. 

The CVPIA balances the priorities of fish and wildlife protection, restoration, and mitigation 

with irrigation, domestic water use, fish and wildlife enhancement, and power augmentation. 

The CVPIA has conducted studies/investigations and implemented hundreds of actions, 

including modifications of Central Valley Project operations, management and acquisition of 

water for fish and wildlife needs, flow management for fish migration and passage, increased 

water flows, replenishment of spawning gravels, restoration of riparian habitats, screening of 

water diversions, and habitat restoration. 

84 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

The Delta Pumping Plant Fish Protection Agreement and the Tracy Fish Collection Mitigation 

Agreement mitigate for State Water Project and pumping plant impacts by screening water 

diversions, enhancing law enforcement efforts to reduce illegal fish harvest, installing seasonal 

barriers to guide fish away from undesirable spawning habitat or migration corridors, restoring 

salmon habitat, and removing four dams to improve fish passage on Butte Creek for Chinook and 

steelhead. Approximately one-third of the approved funding for salmonid projects specifically 

targets spring-run Chinook salmon and steelhead in the upper Sacramento River tributaries. 

Ongoing measures to protect steelhead in the State of California include 100 percent marking of 

all hatchery steelhead, zero bag limits for unmarked steelhead, gear restrictions, closures, and 

size limits designed to protect smolts. The State also works closely with NMFS to review and 

improve inland fishing regulations. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

The inability to adequately conduct viability assessments for the CV steelhead ESU is largely 

due to the lack of comprehensive abundance and trend data for steelhead in the Central Valley. 

Recently, the CALFED program agreed, in concept, to the funding and development of a CV 

steelhead monitoring program. Development and implementation of a monitoring and 

assessment program for CV steelhead is critical for assessing population viability and responses 

to extensive habitat restoration efforts funded by CALFED and CVPIA. 

CALFED’s Battle Creek Restoration Project is a priority action that has already restored stream 

reaches in the 42 miles of Upper Battle Creek suitable for steelhead. The upper reach will be 

fully restored under an agreement between Pacific Gas and Electric (which operates nine 

hydroelectric dams in this reach) and several resource agencies. The intent is to remove five of 

the dams and dedicate the water rights to the environment. The remaining dams would have 

increased instream flows, thereby increasing habitat by 500 to 800 percent. The remaining dam 

structures would be modified with optimally designed fish ladders and screens, and meander belt 

and riparian forest would be restored. Continued funding and implementation of CALFED’s 

Ecosystem Restoration Program and the CVPIA remain an overall priority for continuation of 

habitat restoration efforts, screening of diversions, flow and temperature monitoring, status and 

trends research monitoring, modification of structures to improve fish passage, and overall water 

quality improvements. 

Recovery Priority Number: 3 

The Recovery Priority Number for the CV steelhead ESU was derived from a moderate 

magnitude of threat, because more than 95 percent of historic spawning habitat is inaccessible 

(due to impassable dams) and because CV steelhead require cooler water at higher elevations 

(again, found largely above impassable dams). The recovery potential was determined to be low 

to moderate due to a lack of suitable habitat (requiring cold water and high elevation) below 

impassable barriers, inadequate status and trends data to assess ESU viability, and the 

widespread stocking of hatchery fish (which could negatively impact wild steelhead 

populations). Conflict was determined to exist because of anticipated future development and 

habitat degradation issues, as well as increasing demands for Central Valley water supplies. 

85 
 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

Central California Coast Steelhead ESU (Oncorhynchus mykiss) 

Date Listed: August 18, 1997 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: 

No recovery plan has been completed for this ESU, but recovery planning is under way. 

NMFS Southwest Region (SWR) will initiate the preparation of the recovery plan for the Central 

California Coast (CCC) steelhead ESU at the same time the Technical Recovery Team (TRT) 

distributes the draft Population Structure report for ESUs of Chinook salmon, coho salmon, and 

steelhead in the North Central California Coast Recovery Domain. NMFS will work closely 

with the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) to ensure appropriate integration and 

collaboration between the state Coho Recovery Planning process and the Federal recovery 

planning process. Primary authorship of the recovery plan will be the responsibility of NMFS 

staff, with outreach by NMFS to state, Federal, and private partners central to the recovery effort. 

Species Status: 

The CCC steelhead ESU includes all naturally spawned populations of steelhead and their 

progeny in California streams from the Russian River to Aptos Creek, and the drainages of San 

Francisco and San Pablo Bays eastward to the Napa River (inclusive), excluding the SacramentoSan Joaquin River Basin. Resident populations of O. mykiss that co-occur with anadromous 

populations below impassable barriers (natural and manmade) are included in the CCC steelhead 

ESU. 

No time series data exist of population abundance for the naturally spawning component of the 

CCC steelhead ESU. The naturally spawning population in the largest river system for this ESU, 

the Russian River, is believed to have declined seven-fold since the mid-1960s. Juvenile density 

data is available for five “representative” populations, and each population exhibits a decline 

over the past 8 years of available data. The population trend for the CCC steelhead ESU is a 

continuing decline in abundance. 

Threats and Impacts: 

The following limiting factors are prevalent throughout the ESU and affect most populations 

within the ESU: low over-winter and summer survival of juveniles; limited smolt production; 

low productivity1

; reduced spawning success; and limited spatial distribution throughout the 

ESU. The threats affecting these limiting factors are pervasive throughout the ESU and vary 

among populations within the ESU. Most of the threats are associated with habitat and water 

quantity and quality issues, which include: 

• Lack of side-channel, alcove, tributary, pool, and floodplain habitats for over-winter and 

summer survival of juveniles 

1

 Defined as: (recruits $ spawners-1) 

86 
 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

• Reduced riparian areas, including function and diversity of habitat types along all water 

courses 

• Decreased stream channel sinuosity2 and habitat complexity due to excessive removal of 

habitat forming structures (e.g., large woody debris and boulders) and stream channel 

straitening for flood control purposes 

• Excessive sedimentation in stream channels from a variety of past and current land use 

activities that have filled in pools, covered spawning gravels and benthic invertebrates, 

and reduced flood flow capacity 

• Fragmentation of historic and current habitats due to human-caused barriers (e.g., dams, 

culverts, and bridges) 

• Negative impacts on steelhead and habitat from water impoundments, hydroelectric 

facilities, push-up dams for small riparian diversions, surface and subsurface water 

withdrawals, and water conveyance and flood control systems – Many of the water 

facilities do not have fish passage facilities, and the few facilities with some adult 

passage capabilities have met with limited success. These blockages fragment historic 

and current steelhead habitat directly or indirectly due to their operations. 

• Inadequate screening of numerous water diversions to protect adult and juvenile salmon 

from being entrained into the diversions 

• Significant point and non-point source pollution, which can contribute pollutants such as 

heat and toxic substances into streams and rivers 

Conservation Actions: 

The Preliminary Recovery Strategy for the CCC steelhead ESU is to ensure NMFS is fulfilling 

its obligation under the ESA to conserve and recover Central California Coast (CCC) steelhead. 

NMFS focuses primarily on linking and coordinating ESA programs to recovery planning and 

developing stronger, more collaborative partnerships with other entities whose decisions affect 

salmon recovery options. Under this guidance, NMFS conducted numerous conservation actions 

from 2002–2004 for CCC steelhead ESU recovery and these actions are detailed below. 

Agricultural Land Management Practices 

• Implemented the Fish Friendly Farming program, a multi-agency, third-party certification 

and technical assistance program for wine grape growers practicing best management 

practices (BMPs) 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 

• Continued working closely with Resource Conservation Districts (RCDs) and the Natural 

Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to help identify potential impacts on ESA-listed 

species, to help develop measures to address these impacts, and to help obtain regulatory 

relief under the ESA 

2

 Stream channel sinuosity as defined by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is the ratio of the channel length 

between two points on a channel to the straight-line distance between the same two points – a measure of 

meandering. 

87 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

Gravel Mining 

• Applied the NMFS Southwest Region (SWR) Gravel Mining Guidelines, entitled 

“Sediment Removal from Freshwater Salmonid Habitat: Guidelines to NMFS Staff for 

the Evaluation of Sediment Removal Actions from California Streams” 

• Used guidelines to conduct effects analyses of proposed actions that would remove 

sediment from streams, either for commercial sediment production or flood control 

channel excavation 

Municipal and Agricultural Water Diversions 

• Developed “Guidelines for Maintaining Instream Flows to Protect Fisheries below Water 

Diversions,” which are used by NMFS and the California State Water Resources Control 

Board for flow standards when issuing water rights permits – The Governor of California 

recently signed into law an amendment to the California Water Code to adopt NMFS’ 

Instream Flow Guidelines. 

• Applied the Water Drafting Specifications, Guidelines for Salmonid Passage at Stream 

Crossings, Fish Screening Criteria for Anadromous Salmonids, and the Addendum to 

Fish Screening Criteria for Pumped Water Intakes 

• Developed a fisheries enhancement plan for the Santa Clara Valley Water District’s 

operation of six reservoirs in northern Santa Clara County, California 

• Developed a fish barrier removal program and habitat enhancement plan with the 

Alameda County Water District and San Francisco Public Utilities
 

• Worked with the City of Vallejo and Bureau of Reclamation to establish instream flows 

for steelhead in Suisun Creek, Solano County, California 

Summer Dams 

• Developed a database of summer dams and commenced proactive efforts to engage with 

landowners to minimize the effects of such dams 

• Implemented staff guidelines, entitled “The Effects of Summer Dams on Salmon and 

Steelhead in California Coastal Watersheds & Recommendations for Mitigating Their 

Impacts” 

Timberland Management and Forest Conversions 

• Continued to engage with the Board of Forestry in public meetings, and presented 

information to the Board on specific areas in the Forestry Rules needing improvements 

based on Science Panel findings and field experience 

• Engaged in on-site reviews of timber operations, and implemented the “Salmonid 

Guidelines for Forest Practices” when evaluating non-Federal timber harvest operations 

• Implemented the Stewardship Non-Industrial Timber Management Plan program in 

negotiation with the State Board of Forestry to encourage and minimize regulatory 

burdens on small forest landowners operating under a stewardship philosophy (over 1 

million acres) 

• Conducted Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) negotiations with the Mendocino Redwood 

Company – A Planning Agreement is in place that includes riparian protections from 

timber harvest and other operating restrictions beneficial to salmon until the HCP is 

completed. 

88 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

Urbanization/Channelization 

• Conducted ESA section 7 consultations to minimize the effects of flood control projects, 

levee setbacks, and floodplain management on the ESU 

• Conducted Apanolia Creek Fish Barrier Removal and Habitat Restoration by removing 

three fish barriers, allowing steelhead access to the upper watershed 

• Conducted San Pedro Creek floodplain restoration 

• Worked with Caltrans and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to develop 

guidelines and minimization measures for pile driving impacts on salmonids 

• Worked with Stanford University to remedy fish passage impediments in San 

Francisquito Watershed, San Mateo County, California 

Other Actions 

• Worked with the San Francisco Bay maritime industry to refine environmental work 

windows for protection of listed salmonids 

Federal Efforts 

• Streamlined programs through programmatic strategies and developed best management 

practices for Federal, state, county, or city governments and private landowners for the 

benefit of steelhead habitat – Some programmatic strategies and actions have been 

completed and others are currently under way. These include the following: 

∗ State of California Road Maintenance Manual 

∗ Bank Stabilization Guidelines 

∗ Gravel Mining Guidelines (completed in 2004) 

∗ Ground Water Management Guidelines 

∗ Water Development and Rights Policies 

∗ Minimum Flow Policies for dry seasons to ensure appropriate water temperatures 

and conditions (under way) 

∗ Desalination Management Policy and Timber Harvest Guidelines (completed in 

January 2005) 

• Evaluated impacts to the CCC steelhead ESU through numerous ESA section 7 

consultations, which have improved or minimized adverse impacts 

• Drafted an ESA section 6 agreement to support state recovery actions 

• Provided annual grants to the State of California through the Pacific Coastal Salmon 

Recovery Fund program to assist recovery efforts in coastal watersheds 

Restoration 

• Continued to provide annual grants to the State of California to assist recovery efforts in 

coastal watersheds as part of the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund program – 

NMFS assisted the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) in the development 

of ranking criteria to evaluate grant proposals and ensure that (1) Federal grant money is 

used for the purposes set forth by Congress and (2) there is a representative on the 

technical ranking committee for projects developed and submitted to this program for 

potential funding. These projects include a wide range of activities such as easements; 

road inventories and restoration; improvement of fish passage at barriers; public 

outreach; sediment source inventories and stabilization; fencing of riparian areas along 

89 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

streams; and species and habitat monitoring. Many of these projects have been 

implemented but will require some time before the benefits to the species are realized. 

• Continued to collaborate with the California Conservation Corps, the CDFG, and other 

state and Federal agencies conducting anadromous salmonid and aquatic stream habitat 

restoration projects – These projects include fish passage barrier modifications, instream 

habitat projects, riparian tree planting, and up-slope sediment reduction projects. 

• Continued working with the California Resource Agency and numerous state, local and 

regional agencies; non-profit and stakeholder groups; and consultants as part of the State 

of California’s Fish Passage Forum – The Forum addresses man-made barriers to adult 

and juvenile salmonid passage throughout California’s coastal rivers and streams. The 

Forum identified administrative, financial, and technical impediments to addressing these 

issues, including information gaps, lack of watershed-level assessments and planning, 

and poorly coordinated project review and permitting processes. Group participants 

worked together to develop short- and long-term solutions to these impediments. The 

Forum continues to work to identify barriers; evaluate and prioritize restoration 

opportunities; provide consistent barrier inventory data; and conduct training, public 

outreach, and education related to fish passage barriers. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

Several priority recovery actions are needed for the Central California Coast steelhead ESU, 

including the following: 

• Research and monitor distribution, status, and trends of steelhead. 

• Promote operations of current recovery hatcheries and develop Hatchery and Genetics 

Management Plan (HGMPs) 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/city planning, regulations (e.g., riparian and grading ordinances) and 

county road maintenance programs. 

• Finalize the ESA section 6 agreement to support state recovery actions 

• Remove/upgrade high-priority man-made fish passage barriers (e.g., watercourse 

crossings and non-hydropower dams). 

• Screen all water diversion structures. 

• Replace existing outdated septic systems and improve wastewater management. 

• Identify and treat point and non-point source pollution of streams from wastewater, 

agricultural practices, and urban environments. 

90 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

• Modify channel and flood control maintenance and eliminate artificial breeching of 

sandbars for improvements in channel and estuarine habitats. 

Recovery Priority Number: 3 

Ranking for the CCC steelhead ESU was based on a high degree of threat, a low-moderate 

recovery potential, and an anticipated conflict with development projects or other economic 

activity. This determination was made based on the following factors: (1) the largest run for the 

ESU (the Russian River) has been reduced in size and this decline continues, (2) populations in 

the southern part of the range have declined substantially, (3) habitats are degraded, and (4) there 

have been recent droughts and a change in ocean productivity. A low-moderate recovery 

potential exists due to the large extent of urbanization within the range. Imminent land use 

changes and encroaching urbanization into rural areas are anticipated to conflict with the 

conservation needs of the CCC steelhead. 

91 
 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

South-Central California Steelhead ESU (Oncorhynchus mykiss) 

Date Listed: August 18, 1997 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: 

No recovery plan has been completed for this ESU, but recovery planning is under way. A 

Technical Recovery Team (TRT) has been convened and is in the Phase I recovery planning 

process. The TRT will establish the historic geographic distribution of the species within the 

South-Central California Steelhead Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU), identify historic 

independent and dependent populations, and establish recovery goals and scenarios. Phase II 

recovery planning will involve the establishment of an appropriate policy and planning structure 

to develop a recovery plan, implementation strategy, and cost assessment. 

Species Status: 

The steelhead population within the South-Central California Steelhead ESU (SCC) has declined 

dramatically from estimated annual runs totaling 25,000 adults to less than 500 returning adult 

fish. Of the 36 watersheds historically supporting steelhead runs, approximately 90 percent 

continue to support runs, although run sizes have been sharply reduced in most watersheds. 

Current population trends within individual watersheds continuing to support runs are generally 

unknown, but may vary widely. 

Threats and Impacts: 

The SCC steelhead ESU is near the southern limit of the steelhead’s range. Extensive loss of 

populations in most of the major watersheds is the result of agricultural development, 

urbanization, dewatering, and modification of rivers and creeks. A significant portion of the 

spawning and rearing habitat has been rendered inaccessible to steelhead because dams and other 

instream structures block or impede migration. 

The principal threats to the SCC steelhead ESU are associated with the four major river systems, 

the Pajaro, Salinas, Nacimiento/Arroyo Seco, and Carmel rivers. Each of these watersheds is 

heavily impacted by water facilities (both surface and subsurface) and development on the 

floodplain and associated riparian corridor (for agricultural, residential, and industrial uses 

including sand and gravel extraction). Water developments have physically blocked or impeded 

migration of adult steelhead to headwater spawning and rearing tributaries, and have restricted 

the emigration of juveniles to the ocean. Development of the floodplains has altered the natural 

fluvial processes that facilitate migration and that, 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. Harvesting of timber and 

development of residential structures (and associated roads) on steep-sided erosive slopes has 

resulted in accelerated erosion and sedimentation of river and stream channels. In addition, the 

continued spread and propagation of invasive plants and aquatic species has further degraded 

habitats for steelhead, particularly juveniles. The loss and degradation of the remaining estuarine 

habitat as a result of both point and non-point source pollution and artificial breaching of sandbars has reduced the suitability of these habitats for rearing and acclimation. Finally, the 

92 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

introduction of exotic fish, and the stocking of non-native steelhead fish stocks (in lieu of land 

and water conservation measures) to support recreational fishing have also contributed to the 

decline of native steelhead and related resident trout populations in many coastal rivers and 

streams. 

Conservation Actions: 

Fish passage facilities have been constructed on the Carmel River at the Los Padres Dam with 

funding from the Carmel River Steelheaders and the CalAm Water Agency. A number of 

impediments to fish passage caused by road crossings and other instream structures have been 

eliminated or substantially improved as a result of retro-fitting (or in some cases eliminating) 

such structures. Funding for these projects was provided through the Pacific Coastal Salmon 

Recovery Fund. Planning for the potential removal of San Clemente Dam in the Carmel River 

has advanced substantially; funding for this project was provided by the CalAm Water Agency 

and the California Department of Water Resources. 

Sport fishing regulations for native steelhead have been changed to regulate recreational angling 

in virtually all coastal rivers and streams accessible to SCC steelhead ESU adults migrating from 

the ocean. This recreational fishery is limited to several days a week during the migratory 

season and is catch-and-release only. In addition, the California Department of Fish and Game 

has curtailed its stocking of hatchery-reared trout, limiting stockings to reservoirs, or stream 

reaches above impassable barriers. 

Finally, NMFS has conducted both formal and informal ESA section 7 consultations with 

Federal agencies that fund, carry out, or regulate projects such as flood protection, road 

construction, water diversion, and gravel mining throughout the range of the SCC steelhead 

ESU. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

Recovery planning will require further investigation of life history traits of this species, including 

use of estuarine habitat, juvenile growth and smolting patterns, distribution of residualized 

populations above artificial impassable barriers, and the relationship between putative resident 

and migratory forms of steelhead. 

Re-establishing access to upper watersheds in both small coastal streams and several of the larger 

river systems is one of the highest priorities for the SCC steelhead ESU. Other major recovery 

actions include the completion of planning for the removal of San Clemente Dam on the Carmel 

River. The re-establishment of adequate flow regimes for the Salinas and Nacimiento rivers are 

also high priorities. Further investigation of potential recovery actions south of San Simeon is 

necessary to develop an ESU-wide recovery plan for the SCC steelhead ESU. 

Recovery Priority Number: 3 

Ranking for the SCC steelhead ESU was based on a moderate magnitude of threat, a high 

potential for recovery, and anticipated conflict with current and future development/disturbance 

within the range of the ESU. The Biological Review Team (BRT) that conducted an updated 

status review in 2004 concluded that the SCC steelhead ESU was “not in danger of extinction but 

likely to become so in the foreseeable future.” This determination was based in part on the 

93 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

negative effects of poor land use practices, trout stocking, and generally downward trends in 

adult populations. It is believed there is a moderate magnitude of threat, with a high potential 

for recovery and continued conflict with land disturbance and water-associated impacts. 

94 
 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

Southern California Steelhead ESU (Oncorhynchus mykiss) 

Date Listed: August 18, 1997; Southern Range Extension May 1, 2002 

Legal Status: Endangered 

Recovery Plan Status: 

No recovery plan has been completed for this ESU, but recovery planning is under way. A 

Technical Recovery Team (TRT) has been convened and is in the Phase I recovery planning 

process. The TRT will establish the historic geographic distribution of the species within the 

ESU, identify historic independent and dependent populations, and establish recovery goals and 

a range of recovery scenarios. Phase II recovery planning will involve the establishment of an 

appropriate policy and planning structure to develop a recovery plan, implementation strategy, 

and cost assessment. 

Species Status: 

The steelhead populations within the Southern California steelhead ESU have declined 

dramatically, from estimated annual runs totaling 55,000 adults to less than 500 returning adult 

fish. Populations are believed to have been extirpated from over half the 46 watersheds 

historically supporting steelhead runs. In the southern range extension (from Malibu to the U.S.– 

Mexico border), adult steelhead have been documented in only three watersheds since the 

original listing of the Southern California steelhead ESU. Current population trends within 

individual watersheds continuing to support runs are unknown, but may vary widely between 

watersheds and likely are declining in a majority of the watersheds within the Southern 

California steelhead ESU. 

Threats and Impacts: 

The Southern California steelhead ESU is at the extreme southern limit of the steelhead range. 

Extensive loss of populations, especially south of Malibu Creek, have resulted from 

urbanization, dewatering, and channelization of rivers and creeks. Southern California has also 

lost approximately 90 percent of its historical estuarine habitat. The majority of the spawning 

and rearing habitat has been rendered inaccessible to steelhead as a result of dams, debris basins, 

road crossings, and other instream structures blocking or impeding migration. The introduction 

of exotic fish and the stocking of non-native steelhead fish stocks in many coastal rivers and 

streams (in lieu of land and water conservation measures) to support recreational fishing have 

also contributed to the decline of native steelhead and related resident trout populations. 

Conservation Actions: 

Fish passage facilities have been constructed on the Ventura River at the Robles Diversion Dam, 

on Santa Paula Creek at the Harvey Dam and Santa Paula Creek Flood Control Channel, and on 

Sycamore Creek at the Sycamore Debris Basin. Funding for these projects was provided by the 

California Coastal Conservancy, the California Wildlife Conservation Board, and the 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 retro-fitting (or in some cases eliminating) such structures. Funding for these projects 

was provided by through the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund. Planning for the removal 

95 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

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 was 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 local dam owners. 

Sport-fishing regulations for native steelhead were changed to eliminate recreational angling in 

virtually all coastal rivers and streams accessible to adult steelhead migrating from the ocean. In 

addition, the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) curtailed its stocking of hatcheryreared trout, limiting stockings to reservoirs or stream reaches above impassable barriers. In at 

least one case, the CDFG has begun stocking sterile (triploid) fish to prevent the inter-breeding 

of hatchery-reared fish with native steelhead. 

NMFS has formulated recommendations regarding fish passage and migration flows at Pyramid 

and Santa Felicia Dams on Piru Creek (a tributary to the Santa Clara River) as part of Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission re-licensing actions. In addition, NMFS has participated in the 

Public Trust/Water Right hearings held by the California State Water Resources Control Board 

on the re-licensing of the Cachuma Dam project on the Santa Ynez River. 

Finally, NMFS has conducted both formal and informal ESA section 7 consultations with 

Federal agencies that fund, carry out, or regulate projects such as flood protection, road 

construction, water diversion, and gravel mining throughout the range of the Southern California 

steelhead ESU. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

Recovery planning will require investigation of life history traits for this species, including use 

of estuarine habitat, juvenile growth and smolting patterns, distribution of residualized 

populations above artificial impassable barriers, and the relationship between putative resident 

and migratory forms of steelhead. 

Re-establishing access to upper watersheds in both small coastal streams and several of the larger 

river systems is one of the highest priorities for the Southern California steelhead ESU. Other 

major recovery actions include completion of planning for the removal of Matilija Dam on the 

Ventura River and Rindge Dam on Malibu Creek. The re-establishment of adequate flow 

regimes for the Santa Maria, Santa Ynez, Ventura, and Santa Clara rivers is also a high priority. 

Further investigation of potential recovery actions south of Malibu Creek (within the southern 

range extension) includes watershed barrier inventories, habitat suitability assessments, and 

research into metapopulation dynamics between the larger river systems and short-run coastal 

streams. Such studies are necessary to develop an ESU-wide recovery plan for the Southern 

California steelhead ESU. 

Recovery Priority Number: 3 

Ranking for the Southern California steelhead ESU was based on a high magnitude of threat, a 

moderate potential for recovery, and anticipated conflict with current and future 

development/disturbance within the range of the ESU. The Biological Review Team (BRT) that 

conducted an updated status review in 2004 reiterated the conclusions reached during the 

96 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

previous status review, that the Southern California steelhead ESU “was in danger of extinction.” 

This determination was based in part on the extirpation of populations through much of their 

historical range, the blockage of freshwater habitats, and the continued stocking of hatcheryreared rainbow trout. It is believed there is a high magnitude of threat, with a moderate potential 

for recovery and continued conflict with land disturbance and water-associated development. 

97 
 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

Central California Coast Coho Salmon ESU (Oncorhynchus kisutch) 

Date Listed: October 31, 1996 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: 

No recovery plan has been completed for this ESU, but recovery planning is under way. 

NMFS Southwest Region (SWR) will initiate the preparation of the recovery plan for Central 

California Coast coho (CCC) ESU at the same time the Technical Recovery Team (TRT) 

distributes the draft Population Structure report for the ESUs of Chinook salmon, coho salmon, 

and steelhead in the North-Central California Coast Recovery Domain. NMFS will work closely 

with the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) to ensure appropriate integration and 

collaboration between the state Coho Recovery Planning process and the Federal recovery 

planning process. Primary authorship of the recovery plan will be the responsibility of NMFS 

staff, with outreach by NMFS to state, Federal, and private partners during the recovery effort. 

Species Status: 

The Central California Coast coho salmon ESU (CCC coho) includes all naturally spawned 

populations from Punta Gorda in northern California to the South (including the San Lorenzo 

River in central California), as well as populations in tributaries to San Francisco Bay (excluding 

the Sacramento-San Joaquin River system). Four artificial propagation programs are considered 

part of this ESU1

. The artificially propagated stocks were found to be no more than moderately 

divergent genetically from the natural populations. 

Information on the abundance and productivity trends for the naturally spawning component of 

the CCC coho ESU is extremely limited. No long-term time series of spawner abundance 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. 

Threats and Impacts: 

The extirpation or near extirpation of natural coho populations in several major river basins and 

across most of the southern historical range of the ESU represents a significant risk to CCC coho 

ESU spatial structure and diversity. Critically low abundance of all life stages makes this species 

vulnerable and genetically susceptible to all threats. Freshwater habitat loss and degradation 

1

 The artificial propagation programs are: the Don Clausen/Warm Springs Fish Hatchery Captive Broodstock 

Program, Scott Creek/King Fisher Flats Conservation Program, Scott Creek Captive Broodstock Program, and the 

Noyo River Fish Station Egg-take Program coho hatchery program. 

98 
 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

have been identified as leading factors in the decline of CCC coho salmon. Freshwater habitat 

loss and degradation have resulted from land use activities such as the following: 

• Agricultural operations 

• Artificial barriers 

∗ Canal and pipeline crossings 

∗ Conditions severing surface/subsurface hydrologic connection of stream channel 

and wetlands 

∗ Dams 

∗ Erosion-control structures 

∗ Flood-control structures 

∗ Pits from gravel mining 

∗ Road crossings (e.g., bridges, culverts, and low-water fords) 

• Forestry operations 

• Gravel extraction 

• Illegal harvest 

• Streambed alteration 

• Substandard fish screens on diversions 

• Suction dredging 

• Unscreened water diversions 

• Urbanization 

• Water demand exceeding availability 

• Water pollution 

Additional threats include the following: 

• Potential genetic modification in hatchery stocks resulting from domestication selection 

or low effective population size 

• Incidental mortality from catch-and-release hooking 

• Climatic variation leading to drought, flooding, and variable ocean conditions 

• Predation 

Conservation Actions: 

The Preliminary Recovery Strategy for this ESU is to ensure NMFS is fulfilling its obligation 

under the ESA to conserve and recover CCC coho salmon. NMFS focuses primarily on linking 

and coordinating ESA programs to recovery planning and developing stronger, more 

collaborative partnerships with other entities whose decisions affect salmon recovery options. 

Under this guidance, numerous conservation actions were conducted from 2002–2004 for CCC 

coho ESU recovery and are detailed below. 

Agricultural Land Management Practices 

• Implemented the Fish Friendly Farming program, a multi-agency, third-party certification 

and technical assistance program for wine grape growers practicing best management 

practices (BMPs) 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; and continued working closely with Resource Conservation 

Districts (RCDs) and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 

99 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

Gravel Mining 

• Applied the NMFS Southwest Region (SWR) Gravel Mining Guidelines, entitled 

“Sediment Removal from Freshwater Salmonid Habitat: Guidelines to NMFS Staff for 

the Evaluation of Sediment Removal Actions from California Streams” 

• Used these guidelines to conduct effects analyses of proposed actions that would remove 

sediment from streams, either for commercial sediment production or flood control 

channel excavation – This information helps staff identify adverse effects of sediment 

removal actions and provide reasonable and prudent alternative measures, as necessary. 

Municipal and Agricultural Water Diversions 

• Developed “Guidelines for Maintaining Instream Flows to Protect Fisheries below Water 

Diversions,” which are used by NMFS and the California State Water Resources Control 

Board for flow standards when issuing water rights permits – The Governor of California 

recently signed into law an amendment to the California Water Code to adopt NMFS’ 

Instream Flow Guidelines. 

• Applied the Water Drafting Specifications, Guidelines for Salmonid Passage at Stream 

Crossings, Fish Screening Criteria for Anadromous Salmonids, and the Addendum to 

Fish Screening Criteria for Pumped Water Intakes 

Summer Dams 

• Developed a database of summer dams and commenced proactive efforts to engage with 

landowners to minimize the effects of such dams 

• Implemented staff guidelines, entitled “The Effects of Summer Dams on Salmon and 

Steelhead in California Coastal Watersheds & Recommendations for Mitigating Their 

Impacts” 

Timberland Management and Forest Conversions 

• Continued to engage with the Board of Forestry in public meetings, and presented 

information to the Board on specific areas in the Forestry Rules needing improvements 

based on Science Panel findings and field experience 

• Engaged in on-site reviews of timber operations, and used the “Salmonid Guidelines for 

Forest Practices” when evaluating non-Federal timber harvest operations 

• Implemented the Stewardship Non-Industrial Timber Management Plan program in 

negotiation with the State Board of Forestry to encourage and minimize regulatory 

burdens on small forest landowners operating under a stewardship philosophy (over 1 

million acres) 

• Conducted Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) negotiations with the Mendocino Redwood 

Company – A Planning Agreement is in place that includes riparian protections from 

timber harvest and other operating restrictions beneficial to salmon until the HCP is 

completed. 

Urbanization/Channelization 

• Conducted ESA section 7 consultations to minimize the effects of flood control projects, 

levee setbacks, and floodplain management on the ESU 

100 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

Ocean and Freshwater Fishing 

• Continued prohibitions on retention of coho salmon by commercial troll fishers and 

recreational ocean fisheries 

• Continued prohibition on recreational fishing for coho salmon throughout the central 

California coast 

Federal Efforts 

• Streamlined programs through programmatic strategies and developed best management 

practices for Federal, state, county, or city governments and private landowners for the 

benefit of salmon habitat – Some programmatic strategies and actions have been 

completed and others are currently under way. These include the following: 

∗ State of California Road Maintenance Manual 

∗ Bank Stabilization Guidelines 

∗ Gravel Mining Guidelines (completed in 2004) 

∗ Ground Water Management Guidelines 

∗ Water Development and Rights Policies 

∗ Minimum Flow Policies for dry seasons to ensure appropriate water temperatures 

and conditions (under way) 

• Completed the “Desalination Management Policy and Timber Harvest Guidelines” – 

NMFS evaluated impacts to CCC coho on a wide variety of section 7 consultations, 

which has improved or minimized adverse impacts to coho salmon and their habitat. 

• Drafted an ESA section 6 agreement to support state recovery actions 

• Provided annual grants to the State of California through the Pacific Coastal Salmon 

Recovery Fund program to assist recovery efforts in coastal watersheds 

Restoration 

• Continued to provide annual grants to the State of California to assist recovery efforts in 

coastal watersheds as part of the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund program – 

Assisted the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) in the development of 

ranking criteria to evaluate grant proposals and ensure that (1) Federal grant money is 

used for the purposes set forth by Congress and (2) there is a representative on the 

technical ranking committee for projects developed and submitted to this program for 

potential funding. These projects include a wide range of activities such as easements; 

road inventories and restoration; improvement of fish passage at barriers; public 

outreach; sediment source inventories and stabilization; fencing of riparian areas along 

streams; and species and habitat monitoring. Many of these projects have been 

implemented but will require some time before the benefits to the species are realized. 

• Continued to collaborate with the California Conservation Corps, the CDFG, and other 

state and Federal agencies conducting anadromous salmonid and aquatic stream habitat 

restoration projects – These projects include fish passage barrier modifications, instream 

habitat projects, riparian tree planting, and up-slope sediment reduction projects. 

• Continued working with the California Resource Agency and numerous state, local and 

regional agencies; non-profit and stakeholder groups; and consultants as part of the State 

of California’s Fish Passage Forum – The Forum addresses man-made barriers to adult 

and juvenile salmonid passage throughout California’s coastal rivers and streams. The 

Forum identified administrative, financial, and technical impediments to addressing these 

101 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

issues, including information gaps, lack of watershed-level assessments and planning, 

and poorly coordinated project review and permitting processes. Group participants 

worked together to develop short- and long-term solutions to these impediments. The 

Forum continues to work to identify barriers; evaluate and prioritize restoration 

opportunities; provide consistent barrier inventory data; and conduct training, public 

outreach, and education related to fish passage barriers. 

Genetic and Hatchery Programs 

2001 Warm Springs Hatchery Captive Broodstock Program: 

• Conducted a collaborative effort with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), 

CDFG, commercial fishing interests, local universities, conservation groups, and 

watershed groups to capture, breed, and release Russian River coho salmon 

• Successfully raised and bred two year classes of coho salmon 

• Used spawning matrix to spawn fish to preserve genetic integrity and improve survival as 

part of a Genetic Analysis and Management Plan designed by the NMFS Southwest 

Science Center 

• Released the first juveniles into the Russian River, Sonoma County, in October 2004 with 

additional releases planned for subsequent years 

• Successfully released adults into Walker Creek, Marin County, in 2003 and 2004 

• Conducted extensive habitat restoration and monitoring work at release sites – Three-year 

habitat monitoring was funded by the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund (PCSRF) to 

monitor flow temperatures, derive a biological index of productivity, and conduct 

outmigrant trapping using upstream migrant traps. 

2002 Captive Broodstock Program at Monterey Bay Salmon and Trout Project: 

• Continued collaboration with project, which is partially funded by PCSRF money 

• Used spawning matrix to spawn fish to preserve genetic integrity and improve survival as 

part of a Genetic Analysis and Management Plan designed by the NMFS Southwest 

Science Center 

• Conducted monitoring, which includes upstream trapping, snorkeling and evaluation of 

hatchery and wild fish interactions 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

Several priority recovery actions are needed for the Central California Coast coho salmon ESU, 

including the following: 

• Research and monitor distribution, status, and trends of coho. 

• Promote operations of current recovery hatcheries and develop Hatchery and Genetics 

Management Plans (HGMPs) 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 

102 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

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. 

• Finalize the ESA section 6 agreement to support state recovery actions. 

• Remove/upgrade high-priority man-made fish passage barriers (e.g., watercourse 

crossings and non-hydropower dams). 

• Implement screening of all water diversion structures. 

• Replace existing, outdated septic systems and improve wastewater management. 

• Identify and treat point and non-point source pollution of streams from wastewater, 

agricultural practices, and urban environments. 

• Modify channel and flood control maintenance and eliminate artificial breeching of 

sandbars for improvements in channel and estuarine habitats. 

Recovery Priority Number: 1 

Ranking for CCC coho salmon was based on a high degree of threat, a high recovery potential 

and an anticipated conflict with economic activity. The Biological Review Team agreed in 2004 

that natural populations of coho salmon in the CCC ESU are in danger of extinction. This 

determination was based on the following factors: (1) substantially low abundance of coho 

salmon from historical levels (e.g., more than 50 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. It is believed a high potential for recovery is possible for CCC coho salmon 

because of the likelihood that freshwater impacts can be substantially controlled or reduced 

through habitat protection, implementation of best management practices, and focused 

restoration. Over 80 percent of the range of CCC coho lies under private ownership. Forestry is 

the predominant land use; however, high levels of forest conversion to agriculture and 

urbanization are currently under way. Imminent land use changes are anticipated to conflict with 

the conservation needs of CCC coho salmon. 

103 
 

 

 

 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

California Coast Chinook ESU (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) 

Date Listed: September 16, 1999 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: 

No recovery plan has been completed for this ESU, but recovery planning is under way. 

Species Status: 

The California Coast (CC) Chinook salmon ESU includes all naturally spawned populations of 

Chinook salmon from rivers and streams south of the Klamath River to the Russian River, 

California. Seven artificial propagation programs are considered to be 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. 

CC Chinook salmon continue to exhibit depressed population sizes relative to historical 

abundances; this is particularly true for spring-run Chinook salmon, which may no longer exist 

anywhere within the range. The Biological Review Team (BRT) in 2004 cautioned that 

evaluation of the significance of recent potential increases in Chinook salmon abundance in the 

Russian River must weigh the substantial uncertainty regarding the genetic relatedness of these 

fish to others in the northern portion of the ESU. Population trends for this ESU show a 

continuing decline in abundance. 

Threats and Impacts: 

The following limiting factors are prevalent throughout this ESU and affect most CC Chinook 

populations within the ESU. These factors include: low overwinter and summer survival of 

juveniles, limited smolt production, low productivity1

, reduced spawning success, and limited 

spatial distribution throughout the ESU. 

The threats affecting these factors are pervasive throughout the ESU and vary among 

populations. Most of the threats are associated with habitat and water quantity and quality 

issues, which include the following: 

• Lack of side-channel, alcove, tributary, pool, and floodplain habitats for over-winter and 

summer survival of juveniles 

• Reduced riparian areas, including function and diversity of habitat types along all water 

courses 

• Decreased stream channel sinuosity2 and habitat complexity due to excessive removal of 

habitat forming structures (e.g., large woody debris and boulders) and stream channel 

straitening for flood control purposes 

1

 Defined as: (recruits $ spawners-1) 2

 Stream channel sinuosity is defined by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) as the ratio of the channel length
 

between two points on a channel to the straight-line distance between the same two points – a measure of
 

meandering. 

104 
 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

• Excessive sedimentation in stream channels from a variety of past and current land use 

activities that have filled in pools, covered spawning gravels and benthic invertebrates, 

and reduced flood flow capacity 

• Fragmentation of historic and current habitats due to human-caused barriers (e.g., dams, 

culverts, and bridges) 

• Negative impacts on steelhead and their habitat from water impoundments, hydroelectric 

facilities, push-up dams for small riparian diversions, surface and subsurface water 

withdrawals, and water conveyance and flood control systems – Many of the water 

facilities do not have fish passage facilities, and the few facilities with some adult 

passage capabilities have met with limited success. These blockages fragment historic 

and current steelhead habitat directly or indirectly due to their operations. 

• Inadequate screening of numerous water diversions to protect adult and juvenile salmon 

from being entrained into the diversions 

• Significant point and non-point source pollution, which can contribute pollutants such as 

heat and toxic substances into streams and rivers 

Conservation Actions: 

The Preliminary Recovery Strategy for this ESU is to ensure NMFS is fulfilling its obligation 

under the ESA to conserve and recover CC Chinook. NMFS focuses primarily on linking and 

coordinating ESA programs to recovery planning and developing stronger, more collaborative 

partnerships with other entities whose decisions affect salmon recovery options. Under this 

guidance, numerous conservation actions were conducted from 2002–2004 for the CC Chinook 

ESU recovery and are detailed below. 

Agricultural Land Management Practices 

• Implemented the Fish Friendly Farming program, a multi-agency, third-party certification 

and technical assistance program for wine grape growers practicing best management 

practices (BMPs) 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 

• Consulted on the Northwest Forest Plan, a coordinated ecosystem management strategy 

for Federal lands administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and Bureau 

of Land Management (BLM) – ESA section 7 Biological Opinions are in place for all 

Land and Resource Management Plans (LRMPs) and associated activities (under the 

LRMPs) for all listed species found within each of individual National Forest or BLM 

Resource Area. NMFS participated in the development and review of the Watershed 

Analysis conducted across the public lands to ensure restoration actions are consistent 

with recovery actions for ESA-listed Pacific salmon. Improved habitat conditions will 

result in increased survival of the freshwater life stages of these fish. Implementation of 

actions consistent with the objectives and components (including watershed analysis, 

watershed restoration, reserve and refugia land allocations, and the associated standards 

and guidelines) will provide high levels of aquatic ecosystem understanding, protection, 

and restoration for aquatic habitat-dependent species. 

• Continued working closely with Resource Conservation Districts (RCDs) and Natural 

Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to help identify potential impacts to ESA 

105 
 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

species, to help develop measures to address the impacts, and to help obtain regulatory 

relief under the ESA 

• Contributed to the State of California Coho Recovery Plan – The State of California 

listed two California coho populations (from San Francisco Bay to the Oregon border) 

under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) in 2003. NMFS was an active 

member on the State of California’s two recovery teams that identified and addressed 

recovery needs of the species and habitat statewide. Each of the recovery teams 

developed conservation measures and identified necessary state regulatory changes for 

integration into a single statewide coho recovery plan, which the California Department 

of Fish and Game (CDFG) published in 2004. There are over 700 conservation and 

regulatory recommendations in the plan covering a wide variety of land use activities 

throughout the range of the CC Chinook ESU. 

ESA Section 7 Consultations 

• Conducted over 500 ESA section 7 consultations during the past 6 years with Federal 

action agencies throughout southern Oregon and northern California 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 

Gravel Mining 

• Applied the NMFS Southwest Region (SWR) Gravel Mining Guidelines, entitled 

“Sediment Removal from Freshwater Salmonid Habitat: Guidelines to NMFS Staff for 

the Evaluation of Sediment Removal Actions from California Streams” 

• Used these guidelines to conduct effects analyses of proposed actions that would remove 

sediment from streams, either for commercial sediment production or flood control 

channel excavation – This information helps staff identify adverse effects of sediment 

removal actions and provide reasonable and prudent alternative measures, as necessary. 

• Continued collaboration with Humboldt, Del Norte, and Mendocino counties on the 

Humboldt, Del Norte, and Mendocino Gravel Plans – Long-term sustained gravel mining 

plans have been, or are being, developed by these three northern California counties, 

which contain a substantial portion of the southern Oregon and northern California Coast 

ESUs. NMFS is working with the counties and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

(ACOE) to ensure any Letters of Permission (LOPs) issued for gravel mining are 

protective of all ESA-listed Pacific salmon. 

Municipal and Agricultural Water Diversions 

• Developed “Guidelines for Maintaining Instream Flows to Protect Fisheries below Water 

Diversions,” which are used by NMFS and the California State Water Resources Control 

Board for flow standards when issuing water rights permits – The Governor of California 

recently signed into law an amendment to the California Water Code to adopt NMFS’ 

Instream Flow Guidelines. 

• Applied the Water Drafting Specifications, Guidelines for Salmonid Passage at Stream 

Crossings, Fish Screening Criteria for Anadromous Salmonids, and the Addendum to 

Fish Screening Criteria for Pumped Water Intakes 

• Conducted the Potter Valley ESA section 7 consultation on the revised flow regime for 

Eel River, with anticipated improvement of instream conditions for salmon 

106 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

Summer Dams 

• Developed a database of summer dams and commenced proactive efforts to engage with 

landowners to minimize the effects of such dams 

• Implemented staff guidelines, entitled “The Effects of Summer Dams on Salmon and 

Steelhead in California Coastal Watersheds & Recommendations for Mitigating Their 

Impacts” 

• Worked with CDFG and Humboldt State University on the Freshwater Creek Fish 

Passage Project to develop and construct a fish ladder that passes adult and juvenile 

salmon up and over a 20-foot seasonal dam on Freshwater Creek – The seasonal dam 

operates in spring and summer, and was a complete barrier to ESA-listed anadromous 

salmon for more than 50 years. With the construction of this bypass, these salmon can 

now access over 20 miles of rearing habitat year-round. The project represents the first 

fish ladder in California to effectively pass juvenile fish up and down the barrier. 

• Recommended to the ACOE the denial of two permits for the annual installation of pushup gravel summer dams on Redwood Creek, Humboldt County, due to the following 

factors: impeded juvenile fish passage at barriers, direct mortality of juveniles, and 

increased sediment – The ACOE denied issuance of the permits for the first time in 

decades, and NMFS subsequently observed greater numbers of ESA-listed Pacific 

salmon in Redwood Creek. 

Timberland Management and Forest Conversions 

• Continued to engage with the Board of Forestry in public meetings, and presented 

information to the Board on specific areas in the Forestry Rules needing improvements 

based on Science Panel findings and field experience 

• Engaged in on-site reviews of timber operations, and used the “Salmonid Guidelines for 

Forest Practices” when evaluating non-Federal timber harvest operations 

• Implemented the Stewardship Non-Industrial Timber Management Plan program in 

negotiation with the State Board of Forestry to encourage and minimize regulatory 

burdens on small forest landowners operating under a stewardship philosophy (over 1 

million acres) 

• Conducted Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) negotiations with the Mendocino Redwood 

Company – A Planning Agreement is in place that includes riparian protections from 

timber harvest and other operating restrictions beneficial to salmon until the HCP is 

completed. 

• Worked on the Pacific Lumber Company Habitat Conservation Plan (PALCO HCP), 

which 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 

• Held technical and policy discussions (in conjunction with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service) with the Green Diamond Resource Company regarding the development of a 

Habitat Conservation Plan for much of its industrial timber operations in northern 

California – The Green Diamond Resource Company prepared a draft Aquatic Habitat 

Conservation Plan/Candidate Conservation Agreement in support of its applications. 

NMFS is conducting an ESA section 7 consultation for all ESA-listed Pacific salmon in 

northern California. The Initial Plan Area includes 416,531 acres in Humboldt and Del 

107 
 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

Norte counties, of which 170,241 acres (40.9 percent) are in the lower Klamath River 

basin. 

Urbanization/Channelization 

• Conducted ESA section 7 consultations to minimize the effects of flood control projects, 

levee setbacks, and floodplain management on the ESU 

• Collaborated with Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District (HBMWD) on the 

development of a habitat conservation plan (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 – Fundamental elements of the HCP 

include: installation of new fish screens, and maintenance and increase of river flows 

above historic levels. The HCP will be finalized once the “no surprises” rules are 

completed3. 

Restoration 

• Continued to provide annual grants to the State of California to assist recovery efforts in 

coastal watersheds as part of the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund program – 

Assisted the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) in the development of 

ranking criteria to evaluate grant proposals and ensure that (1) Federal grant money is 

used for the purposes set forth by Congress and (2) there is a representative on the 

technical ranking committee for projects developed and submitted to this program for 

potential funding. These projects include a wide range of activities such as easements; 

road inventories and restoration; improvement of fish passage at barriers; public 

outreach; sediment source inventories and stabilization; fencing of riparian areas along 

streams; and species and habitat monitoring. Many of these projects have been 

implemented but will require some time before the benefits to the species are realized. 

• Consulted under ESA section 7 with the San Francisco District of ACOE regarding the 

ACOE’s issuance of a Regional General Permit (RGP) to CDFG – The RGP is for 

restoration activities pursuant to CDFG’s “California Salmonid Stream Habitat 

Restoration Manual” and the resulting effects on ESA-listed salmon north of San 

Francisco to the Oregon border. This RGP authorizes CDFG (and the agents contracted, 

funded, and/or supervised by CDFG) to carry out fisheries habitat restoration program 

projects compliant with the manual. To date, more than 1,000 projects have been 

implemented, with hundreds of miles of Pacific salmon habitat being restored and 

available for use by juvenile and adult Pacific salmonids. 

• Worked with the Redwood Creek and State Parks services, which developed several 

plans to help protect and enhance anadromous salmon habitat – These plans identify 

actions the National Parks and State Parks will undertake to restore aquatic and terrestrial 

ecological functions within park boundaries, based on exhaustive inventorying over the 

past 20 years. 

3

 “No surprises” rules are assurances provided by the government to non-Federal landowners through ESA section 

10(a)(1)(B). Private landowners are assured that if "unforeseen circumstances" arise, NMFS and/or FWS will not 

require the commitment of additional land, water, or financial compensation or additional restrictions on the use of 

land, water, or other natural resources beyond the level otherwise agreed to in the HCP without the consent of the 

permittee. The government will honor these assurances as long as a permittee is implementing the terms and 

conditions of the HCP, permit, and other associated documents in good faith. 

108 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

• Continued to collaborate with the California Conservation Corps, the CDFG, and other 

state and Federal agencies conducting anadromous salmonid and aquatic stream habitat 

restoration projects – These projects include fish passage barrier modifications, instream 

habitat projects, riparian tree planting, and up-slope sediment reduction projects. 

• Continued working with the California Resource Agency and numerous state, local, and 

regional agencies; non-profit and stakeholder groups; and consultants as part of the State 

of California’s Fish Passage Forum – The Forum addresses man-made barriers to adult 

and juvenile salmonid passage throughout California’s coastal rivers and streams. The 

Forum identified administrative, financial, and technical impediments to addressing these 

issues, including information gaps, lack of watershed-level assessments and planning, 

and poorly coordinated project review and permitting processes. Group participants 

worked together to develop short- and long-term solutions to these impediments. The 

Forum continues to work to identify barriers; evaluate and prioritize restoration 

opportunities; provide consistent barrier inventory data; and conduct training, public 

outreach, and education related to fish passage barriers. 

Hatchery and Genetics 

• Commenced collaboration with CDFG in the development of Hatchery and Genetics 

Management Plans (HGMPs) and Fisheries Management Evaluation Plans for all 

hatcheries and fisheries programs located throughout northern California – It is 

anticipated that upon completion of these plans, these programs would qualify for the 

ESA section 4(d) rules exempting them from take violations. NMFS has been working 

with several hatchery programs and CDFG to reduce the mortality of wild, native ESAlisted salmon that were in excess of the facilities’ spawning needs. 

• Implemented hatchery programs to control disease and minimize its effect on wild fish 

• Conducted pikeminnow eradication efforts 

Federal Efforts 

• Streamlined programs through programmatic strategies and developed best management 

practices for Federal, state, county, or city governments and private landowners for the 

benefit of salmon habitat – Some programmatic strategies and actions have been 

completed and others are currently under way. These include the following: 

∗ State of California Road Maintenance Manual 

∗ Bank Stabilization Guidelines 

∗ Gravel Mining Guidelines (completed in 2004) 

∗ Ground Water Management Guidelines 

∗ Water Development and Rights Policies 

∗ Minimum Flow Policies for dry seasons to ensure appropriate water temperatures 

and conditions (under way) 

∗ Desalination Management Policy and Timber Harvest Guidelines (completed in 

January 2005) 

• Evaluated impacts to the CC Chinook ESU through numerous ESA section 7 

consultations, which have improved or minimized adverse impacts 

• Drafted an ESA section 6 agreement to support state recovery actions 

• Provided annual grants to the State of California through the Pacific Coastal Salmon 

Recovery Fund program to assist recovery efforts in coastal watersheds 

109 
 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

Several priority recovery actions are needed for the California Coast Chinook Salmon ESU, 

including the following: 

• Research and monitor distribution, status, and trends of Chinook. 

• Promote operations of current recovery hatcheries and develop HGMPs to minimize 

negative influences of hatcheries. 

• Improve freshwater habitat quantity and quality. 

• Protect and restore habitat complexity and connectivity from the upper watershed to the 

ocean. 

• Conduct focused freshwater habitat restoration in salmon streams (e.g., erosion control, 

bank stabilization, riparian protection and restoration, and reintroduction of large woody 

debris). 

• Balance water supply and allocation with fisheries needs through a water rights program, 

designate fully appropriated watersheds, 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. 

• Finalize the ESA section 6 agreement to support state recovery actions. 

• Remove/upgrade high-priority man-made fish passage barriers (e.g., watercourse 

crossings and non-hydropower dams). 

• Implement screening of all water diversion structures. 

• Replace existing, outdated septic systems and improve wastewater management. 

• Identify and treat point and non-point source pollution of streams from wastewater, 

agricultural practices, and urban environments. 

• Modify channel and flood control maintenance and eliminate artificial breeching of 

sandbars for improvements in channel and estuarine habitats. 

Recovery Priority Number: 3 

Ranking for the California Coast (CC) Chinook ESU was 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 life history in the Eel River Basin and elsewhere in the ESU. 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. And conflict is anticipated due to imminent land use changes and 

encroaching urbanization into rural areas. 

110 
 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

Sacramento River Winter-run Chinook Salmon ESU (Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha) 

Date Listed: November 5, 1990; reclassified January 4, 1994 

Legal Status: Endangered (reclassified from original listing as threatened) 

Recovery Plan Status: 

A draft recovery plan for the Sacramento winter-run Chinook salmon ESU was issued in August 

1997. The final recovery plan for this ESU is under development. 

Species Status: 

The Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon ESU is represented by a single extant 

population. Construction of the Shasta and Keswick Dams completely displaced this ESU from 

its historical spawning habitat. Cold-water releases from the reservoir behind Shasta Dam 

artificially maintain the remaining spawning habitat. The productivity and abundance of the 

naturally spawning component of this ESU have exhibited marked improvement in recent years, 

compared to years of relatively low abundance in the 1980s and early 1990s. The Biological 

Review Team (BRT) noted that the recent mean abundance1

 is only 3 percent of the peak mean 

(post-1967), and the BRT is particularly concerned about risks to the diversity and spatial 

structure of the ESU. Construction of Shasta Dam merged at least four independent populations 

into a single population, resulting in a substantial loss of genetic diversity, life-history variability, 

and local adaptation. Critically low salmon abundance (particularly in the early 1990s) imposed 

“bottlenecks” for the single remaining population, which further reduced genetic diversity. ESU 

viability is assessed on the basis of four Viable Salmon Population (VSP) criteria: abundance, 

productivity, spatial structure, and diversity. For this ESU, the BRT found extremely high risk 

for each of the four VSP categories. The majority opinion of the BRT was that the naturally 

spawned component of the Sacramento River winter-run ESU is “likely to become endangered 

within the foreseeable future.” 

Two artificial propagation programs are also part of the Sacramento River winter-run Chinook 

ESU. Artificial propagation of and a captive broodstock program for winter-run Chinook are 

carried out in the Livingston-Stone National Fish Hatchery (NFH) on the mainstem Sacramento 

River above Keswick Dam. A captive broodstock program is also maintained at the University 

of California’s Bodega Marine Laboratory. These programs (operated for conservation purposes 

since the early 1990s) were identified as high-priority recovery actions in the 1997 Draft 

Recovery Plan for this ESU. Because of increased escapement over the past several years, 

consideration is being given to terminating the captive broodstock program. An assessment of 

the effects of these artificial propagation programs on the viability of the ESU in total concluded 

that the programs decrease risk to some degree by contributing to increased ESU abundance and 

diversity, but have a neutral or uncertain effect on productivity and spatial structure. A second 

naturally spawning population is considered critical to the long-term viability of this ESU, and 

plans are under way (but not yet implemented) to eventually establish a second population in the 

upper Battle Creek watershed, using the artificial propagation program as a source for fish. The 

1

 Measured as five-year geometric mean. 

111 
 

 

 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

artificial propagation program has contributed to maintaining diversity of the ESU through 

careful use of spawning protocols to maximize genetic diversity of propagated fish and minimize 

impacts on the naturally spawning population. In addition, the artificial propagation and captive 

broodstock programs preserve the genome of this ESU. 

Threats and Impacts: 

As winter-run Chinook salmon historically were dependent on access to spring-fed tributaries to 

the upper Sacramento River that remained cool during summer and early fall, the most obvious 

impact to this ESU was the construction of Shasta Dam; the dam blocked access to the ESU’s 

entire historic spawning habitat. With cold-water releases from Shasta creating conditions 

suitable for winter-run Chinook salmon 100 feet below the dam, this species was able to survive 

habitat alteration, but experienced significant impacts. Presumably, there were several 

independent populations of winter-run Chinook salmon in the Pitt, McCloud, and Little 

Sacramento rivers, and in various tributaries to these rivers, such as Hat Creek and the Fall 

River. These populations merged to form the current single population. Any populations that 

may have existed in Battle Creek and the Calaveras River have since been extirpated. This ESU 

continues to be threatened by having only one extant population, low population size (compared 

to historic levels), vulnerability to drought, inadequately screened or unscreened water 

diversions, predation at artificial strictures and by non-native species, pollution (e.g., Iron 

Mountain Mine), adverse flow conditions, high summer water temperatures, unsustainable 

harvest rates, and passage problems at various structures. 

Conservation Actions: 

Numerous conservation actions were conducted from 2002–2004 for the Sacramento River 

winter-run Chinook ESU. 

The Central Valley Project section 7 consultation with the Bureau of Reclamation likely 

contributed to habitat improvements benefiting the Sacramento River winter-run Chinook 

salmon ESU. Implementation of the 1992 reasonable and prudent alternative has provided 

substantial benefits to this ESU by improving habitat and fish passage conditions in the 

Sacramento River and Delta. Such improvement likely has contributed to increases in 

abundance and productivity over the past decade through actions such as maintenance of 

minimum water flows during fall and winter months, establishment of temperature criteria to 

support spawning and rearing upstream of Red Bluff Diversion Dam (coupled with water 

releases from Shasta Dam), reoperation of the Red Bluff Diversion Dam gates for improved 

adult and juvenile fish passage, and constraints on Delta water exports to reduce impacts on 

juvenile outmigrants. 

In addition, two large, ongoing comprehensive conservation programs in the Central Valley 

provide a wide range of ecosystem and species-specific protective efforts benefiting Chinook 

salmon – CALFED and the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA). CALFED is a 

cooperative effort of more than 20 state and Federal agencies working with local communities to 

improve water quality and reliability for California’s water supplies, and has made efforts to 

restore the San Francisco Bay-Delta. Though not fully implemented, CALFED’s Ecosystem 

Restoration Program has funded projects involving habitat restoration, floodplain restoration and 

protection, instream and riparian habitat restoration and protection, fish screening and passage, 

112 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

research on non-native species and contaminants, research and monitoring of fishery resources, 

and watershed stewardship and outreach. CALFED established the Environmental Water 

Account to offset losses of juvenile fish at the Delta pumps and to provide higher instream flows 

in the Yuba, Stanislaus, American, and Merced rivers to benefit salmon. 

The CVPIA balances the priorities of fish and wildlife protection, restoration, and mitigation 

with irrigation, domestic water use, fish and wildlife enhancement, and power augmentation. 

The Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have conducted studies and 

implemented hundreds of actions, including modifications of Central Valley Project operations, 

management and acquisition of water for fish and wildlife needs, flow management for fish 

migration and passage, increased water flows, replenishment of spawning gravels, restoration of 

riparian habitats, and screening of water diversions. Actions in the Sacramento River tributaries 

have focused on riparian and shaded riverine aquatic habitat restoration, improved access to 

available upstream habitat, improved instream flows, and reduced loss of juveniles at diversions. 

Habitat restoration includes water acquisition for instream flows; channel restoration and 

enhancement; removal of dams and blockages to migration; gravel replenishment; and 

construction or modifications of devices to improve instream habitat, and to improve access or 

reduce fish mortalities during migrations (such as fish ladders and screening diversions). 

Harvest protective measures benefiting winter-run Chinook salmon include seasonal constraints 

on sport and commercial fisheries south of Point Arena. In addition, the State has listed winterrun Chinook under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), and has thus established 

specific in-river fishing regulations and no-retention prohibitions designed to protect this fish 

stock (e.g., management measures for time and area closures, gear restrictions, and zero bag 

limits in the Sacramento River). 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

The primary priority remaining for the winter-run Chinook salmon ESU is the establishment of 

an additional population or populations within the ESU. With only one population, the effects of 

other remaining threats (e.g., population size, unscreened water diversions, adverse water flow 

and temperature conditions, passage problems at various structures, and risk from drought 

conditions) are exacerbated. Reduction of all threats contributes to fulfillment of the VSP 

criteria for a viable ESU. CALFED’s Battle Creek Restoration Project is another priority action 

to address limiting factors. This project has already restored stream reaches in the 42 miles of 

Upper Battle Creek suitable for winter-run Chinook salmon. The upper reach is to be fully 

restored under an agreement between Pacific Gas and Electric (which operates nine hydroelectric 

dams in this reach) and resource agencies. The intent is to remove five of the dams and dedicate 

water rights to the environment. The remaining dams would have increased instream flows, 

resulting in a habitat increase of 500 to 800 percent. In addition, remaining dam structures 

would be modified with optimally designed fish ladders and screens, and the meander belt and 

riparian forest would be restored. Continued funding and implementation of CALFED’s 

Ecosystem Restoration Program and the CVPIA remain a priority overall to continue habitat 

restoration efforts, screening of diversions, flow and temperature monitoring, status and trends 

research monitoring, modification of structures to improve fish passage, and overall water 

quality improvements. 

113 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

Recovery Priority Number: 1 

The recovery priority number for the Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon ESU was 

based on a high magnitude of threat due to a single extant population vulnerable to loss of 

genetic diversity, low abundance, unscreened diversions, high water temperatures, and effects of 

drought. The recovery potential is low to moderate due to the lack of additional populations, 

lack of available/suitable habitat (cold water), unscreened diversions/passage problems, and 

inadequate instream flow. Conflict was determined to be present due to anticipated future 

development, habitat degradation issues, and increasing demands for Central Valley water 

supplies. 

114 
 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

Central Valley Spring-run Chinook Salmon ESU (Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha) 

Date Listed: September 16, 1999 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: 

No recovery plan has been completed for this ESU, but recovery planning is under way. 

Species Status: 

The Central Valley (CV) spring-run Chinook salmon ESU has been reduced from an estimated 

17 historical populations to only three extant natural populations with consistent spawning runs 

(on Mill, Deer, and Butte creeks, which are tributaries to the Sacramento River). These 

remaining natural populations reached low abundance levels during the late 1980s (at 67 to 243 

spawners compared to a historic peak of about 700,000 spawners), and are within close 

geographic proximity, making them vulnerable to disease and catastrophic events. CV springrun Chinook require cool water while they mature in freshwater over the summer. Summer 

water temperatures in the CV are suitable for Chinook salmon only above the 150 to 500 meter 

elevation; most such habitat in the CV is now upstream of impassable dams. The upper 

Sacramento River supports a small spring-run population, but its status is poorly documented and 

the degree of hybridization with fall-run Chinook salmon is unknown. Of numerous Sierra 

Nevada stream populations only two remain – the Feather River and the Yuba River populations. 

The Feather River population is dependent on Feather River Hatchery (FRH) production (which 

is not considered part of the ESU) and may have hybridized with fall-run Chinook. Production is 

offsite, which contributes to straying. The status of the Yuba River population is largely 

unknown, other than appearing to be small. An overall loss of diversity has resulted from the 

extirpation of spring-run populations in most of the CV, including all the San Joaquin tributaries. 

The Biological Review Team (BRT) views the FRH as a major threat to the genetic integrity of 

the remaining wild spring-run comprising this ESU. 

The recent 5-year mean abundance for the three naturally spawning populations remains 

relatively small (500 to over 4,500 spawners); however, short- and long-term productivity trends 

are positive and population sizes have shown continued increases over the abundance levels of 

the 1980s. The BRT has noted moderately high risk for the VSP abundance, spatial structure, 

and diversity criteria, but a lower risk for productivity (reflecting recent positive trends). 

Informed by this risk assessment, the strong majority opinion of the BRT is that the CV springrun Chinook salmon ESU is “likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future.” No 

artificially propagated populations of spring-run Chinook in this ESU mitigate the BRT 

assessment. 

Threats and Impacts: 

The CV spring-run Chinook salmon ESU is currently faced with three primary limiting factors 

and threats: (1) loss of most historic spawning habitat, (2) degradation of the remaining habitat, 

and (3) genetic threats from the FRH spring-run Chinook salmon program. Spring-run Chinook 

require cool freshwater in summer, most of which is upstream of impassable dams. The ESU is 

115 
 

 

 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

limited to only three natural populations of spring-run (on Mill, Deer, and Butte creeks) that have 

consistent spawning runs, one small and largely unknown population on the Yuba River, and a 

Feather River population dependent on FRH production. This ESU continues to be threatened 

by habitat loss, degradation and modification, small hydropower dams and water diversions that 

reduce or eliminate instream flows during migration, unscreened or inadequately screened water 

diversions, excessively high water temperatures, and predation by non-native species. 

Conservation Actions: 

During 2002–2004 , progress was made in addressing some of the limiting factors and threats to 

this ESU, largely through ESA section 7 consultations and other ESA-related conservation 

efforts in the Central Valley. The Central Valley Project section 7 consultation with the Bureau 

of Reclamation has likely contributed to habitat improvements benefiting the CV spring-run 

Chinook salmon ESU, such as flow and temperature improvements. 

In addition, two large, comprehensive conservation programs in the Central Valley provide a 

wide range of ecosystem and species-specific protective efforts benefiting spring-run Chinook 

salmon – CALFED and the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA). CALFED is a 

cooperative effort of more than 20 state and Federal agencies working with local communities to 

improve water quality and reliability for California’s water supplies, while making efforts to 

restore the San Francisco Bay-Delta. Though not fully implemented, CALFED’s Ecosystem 

Restoration Program has funded projects involving habitat restoration, floodplain restoration and 

protection, instream and riparian habitat restoration and protection, fish screening and passage 

projects, research on non-native species and contaminants, research and monitoring of fishery 

resources, and watershed stewardship and outreach. CALFED established the Environmental 

Water Account to offset losses of juvenile fish at the Delta pumps, and to provide higher 

instream flows in the Yuba, Stanislaus, American, and Merced rivers to benefit salmon. 

The CVPIA balances the priorities of fish and wildlife protection, restoration, and mitigation 

with those of irrigation, domestic water use, fish and wildlife enhancement, and power 

augmentation. The Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have 

conducted studies and implemented hundreds of actions, including modifications of Central 

Valley Project operations, management and acquisition of water for fish and wildlife needs, flow 

management for fish migration and passage, increased water flows, replenishment of spawning 

gravels, restoration of riparian habitats, and screening of water diversions. Actions in the 

Sacramento River tributaries have focused on riparian and shaded riverine aquatic habitat 

restoration, improved access to available upstream habitat, improved instream flows, and 

reduced loss of juveniles at diversions, particularly for spring-run Chinook salmon and steelhead. 

Habitat restoration includes water acquisition for instream flows, channel restoration and 

enhancement, removal of dams and blockages to migration, gravel replenishment, and 

construction or modifications of devices to improve instream habitat and to improve access or 

reduce fish mortalities during migrations (such as fish ladders and screening diversions). 

The Delta Pumping Plant Fish Protection Agreement and the Tracy Fish Collection Mitigation 

Agreement mitigate for State Water Project and pumping plant impacts through screening of 

unscreened water diversions, enhanced law enforcement efforts to reduce illegal fish harvest, 

installation of seasonal barriers to guide fish away from undesirable spawning habitat or 

116 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

migration corridors, salmon habitat restoration, and removal of four dams to improve fish 

passage on Butte Creek for Chinook and steelhead. Approximately one-third of the approved 

funding for salmon projects specifically targets spring-run Chinook salmon and steelhead in the 

upper Sacramento River tributaries. 

Harvest protective measures benefiting spring-run Chinook salmon include seasonal constraints 

on sport and commercial fisheries south of Point Arena. In addition, the State has listed springrun Chinook under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), and has thus established 

specific in-river fishing regulations and no-retention prohibitions designed to protect this fish 

stock (e.g., fishing method restrictions, gear restrictions, bait limitations, seasonal closures, and 

zero bag limits), particularly in primary tributaries such as Deer, Big Chico, Mill, and Butte 

creeks, which support spring-run Chinook salmon. The California Department of Fish and Game 

has implemented enhanced enforcement efforts in spring-run tributaries and adult holding areas, 

which have significantly reduced illegal harvest. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

Recovery of the CV spring-run Chinook salmon ESU continues to be limited by the close 

geographic proximity of the only three remaining wild spring-run Chinook salmon populations 

with consistent spawning runs, which makes them vulnerable to disease and catastrophic events, 

loss of spawning habitat, widespread degradation and modification of remaining habitat 

(especially spawning and rearing habitat), and genetic threats from the FRH. The many small 

hydropower dams and water diversions on the natal tributaries reduce or eliminate instream 

flows during spring-run migration periods, leading to predation by non-native species and 

excessively high water temperatures, and loss of fish attributed to unscreened or inadequately 

screened water diversions in migratory corridors. Reduction of all these threats contributes to 

fulfillment of the Viable Salmon Population (VSP) criteria for a viable ESU. 

CALFED’s Battle Creek Restoration Project is a priority action. This project has already 

restored stream reaches in the 42 miles of Upper Battle Creek suitable for spring-run Chinook 

salmon. This upper reach is to be fully restored under an agreement between Pacific Gas and 

Electric (which operates nine hydroelectric dams in this reach) and resource agencies. The intent 

is to remove five of the dams and dedicate those water rights to the environment. The remaining 

dams would have minimum instream flows increased, resulting in a habitat increase of 500 to 

800 percent. Remaining dam structures would be modified with optimally designed fish ladders 

and screens, and the meander belt and riparian forest would be restored. Continued funding and 

implementation of CALFED’s Ecosystem Restoration Program and the CVPIA remain a priority 

overall to continue habitat restoration efforts, screening of diversions, flow and temperature 

monitoring, status and trends research 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. 

117 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

Recovery Priority Number: 3 

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 2002–2004 

ATLANTIC SALMON RECOVERY 

Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar) – Gulf of Maine DPS 

Date Listed: November 17, 2000 (listed jointly by NMFS and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) 

Legal Status: Endangered 

Recovery Plan Status: 

The Draft Recovery Plan for the Gulf of Maine DPS was prepared jointly by NMFS, the Maine 

Atlantic Salmon Commission (ASC), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). The draft 

plan was published in June 2004, with the public comment period closing in August 2004. 

The recovery plan builds on and expands recovery actions identified in the State of Maine’s 

Atlantic Salmon Conservation Plan for Seven Maine Rivers (MASCP). NMFS and FWS 

(together, the Services) intend to maintain and expand ongoing collaborative recovery efforts in 

cooperation with the State of Maine. 

The Services are in the process of addressing public comments on the draft recovery plan as part 

of efforts to finalize the recovery plan. NMFS has been designated as the lead agency 

responsible for finalizing the recovery plan, and the Services anticipate publishing the final 

recovery plan in 2005. 

Species Status: 

The Gulf of Maine DPS of Atlantic salmon has declined to critically low levels. Adult returns, 

juvenile abundance estimates, and survival have continued to decline since the DPS was listed. 

In 2003, total adult returns to the eight rivers still supporting wild Atlantic salmon populations 

within the DPS were estimated to range from 61 to 86 individuals. 

Threats and Impacts: 

An evaluation of the geographic extent and life stage affected by threats (and of the severity of 

these effects) identified the following threats to and impacts on recovery of the Gulf of Maine 

DPS of Atlantic salmon: 

• Aquaculture practices, which pose ecological and genetic risks 

• Acidified water and associated aluminum toxicity, which decrease juvenile survival 

• Poaching of adults in DPS rivers 

• Incidental capture of adults and parr by recreational fishermen 

• Predation 

• Excessive or unregulated water withdrawal 

• Low marine survival 

• Physical alteration of freshwater habitat 

119 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

Conservation Actions: 

During 2002–2004, the NMFS Northeast Regional Office (NERO) and Northeast Fisheries 

Science Center (NEFSC) – in cooperation with the Maine ASC, FWS, and other partners – 

pursued a range of management and research activities intended to mitigate and reduce the 

severest threats to Atlantic salmon. 

Prior and existing categories of recovery actions for Atlantic salmon include research activities 

to improve our understanding of salmon abundance and health, identification and mitigation of 

threats to the species, collaboration with partners and affected parties to facilitate implementation 

of protective measures, and efforts to engage local stakeholders in stewardship activities. 

Recovery actions and activities implemented during 2002–2004 include the following: 

• Prepared a draft recovery plan 

• Participated in international management of Atlantic salmon through the North Atlantic 

Salmon Conservation Organization (NASCO) 

• Continued monitoring and assessment of the status of wild salmon populations 

• Initiated an experimental study to determine the potential for mitigating impacts on the 

DPS from low pH due to acid rain 

• Conducted an experimental study to determine the potential for predator deterrence to 

increase survival rates of juvenile and adult Atlantic salmon 

• Provided substantial support to the Maine ASC for assessment and management activities 

• Worked with stakeholders on a variety of habitat restoration and protection projects 

• Worked with the aquaculture industry to implement measures protective of the DPS 

• Convened a biological review team to review the relationship of other Maine river 

systems and salmon populations to the Gulf of Maine DPS 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

Priority recovery actions needed in the next several years for the Gulf of Maine Atlantic salmon 

DPS fall into several broad categories: 

1. Implement recovery actions to address the severest threats. 

2. Conduct research necessary to address critical information needs. 

3. Work with partners and affected parties to facilitate the implementation of protective 

measures. 

4. Engage local stakeholders to promote stewardship of Atlantic salmon and their habitat. 

Specific high-priority recovery actions needed for the conservation and recovery of this DPS 

include: 

• Publish the final Recovery Plan for the Gulf of Maine DPS of Atlantic Salmon. 

• Appoint and convene an Atlantic Salmon Recovery Team to coordinate implementation 

of the recovery plan. 

• Participate in international salmon management through NASCO to ensure adequate 

protection of U.S. stocks. 

• Conduct research on stream acidification mitigation (Dennys River), cormorant predation 

(Narraguagus River), and habitat enhancement (Sheepscot River). Expand the research 

to other rivers in the DPS as necessary. 

120 
 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

• Continue assessments of smolt production and migration, and expand the temporal and 

spatial extent of coverage for post-smolt surface trawling assessment programs. 

• Continue to participate and contribute to international cooperative research and 

assessment efforts to improve the understanding of salmon at sea, including West 

Greenland and St. Pierre et Miquelon. 

• Conduct a flow monitoring program, review water withdrawal permits and potential 

groundwater withdrawals for impact on stream flow and cold water discharges, and 

investigate the potential for stream flow augmentation to help meet Atlantic salmon flow 

needs and increase juvenile production and survival. 

• Implement an integrated long-term water chemistry monitoring program on all DPS 

rivers. 

• Prepare and implement non-point source pollution reduction plans for DPS rivers. 

• Evaluate the link between pesticides and endocrine disruption. 

• Conduct high-priority restoration projects. 

• Review essential fish habitat (EFH) designations for Atlantic salmon. 

• Evaluate the impacts of proposed activities on Atlantic salmon, including state and local 

land use regulations and best management practices (BMPs). 

• Maintain commercial and recreational fishery restrictions on directed harvest. 

• Monitor indirect harvest of fish, and take appropriate measures. 

• Work with the State of Maine to minimize potential impacts of existing stocking 

programs on Atlantic salmon populations and minimize any potential adverse effects. 

• Update existing fish health guidelines and protocols to control the introduction of new 

pathogens, and conduct research on disease detection and prevention. 

• Develop and implement appropriate management measures to mitigate the impact of 

documented seal predation on wild salmon populations. 

• Develop and implement a comprehensive Education and Outreach Plan for the Gulf of 

Maine DPS of Atlantic salmon. 

• Continue stocking cultured fish to supplement wild salmon populations and conduct a 

peer-review of the current stocking program. 

• Update brood stock management plans, including brood fish collection, genetic 

management, and program evaluation. 

• Evaluate the need to reestablish populations of Atlantic salmon in rivers within the DPS 

where currently extirpated. 

• Experimentally evaluate the role of alternate stocking strategies to supplement wild 

salmon populations. 

Recovery Priority Number: 1 

Immediately following the listing of the Gulf of Maine DPS of Atlantic salmon, NMFS (with 

FWS assistance) prepared a Recovery Outline for the DPS. In accordance with FWS 

Recovery Priority Guidelines, the Services assigned a priority number of 3C to this 

DPS in the Outline. The ranking is based on certain factors, including: high degree of threat, 

high potential for recovery, and the presence of conflict. On the NMFS scale, this corresponds to 

a priority number of “1.” 

121 
Known Spawning Rivers 

 

 

 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

NON-SALMONID FISH RECOVERY 

Gulf Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi) 

Date Listed: September 30, 1991 (listed jointly by NMFS and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: 

The final recovery plan for the Gulf sturgeon was published in September 1995. 

Species Status: 

The Gulf sturgeon is an anadromous fish whose present range extends from Lake Pontchartrain 

and the Pearl River system in Louisiana and Mississippi east to the Suwannee River in Florida. 

Gulf sturgeon adults spawn in freshwater, then migrate to feed and grow in estuarine/marine 

habitats. 

While the overall status of Gulf sturgeon is considered stable, the exact status remains unclear. 

No estimates of the historical population size of Gulf sturgeon or its subpopulations are 

available, although some commercial landing statistics are available from 1887 to 1985. 

Estimated population sizes for known Gulf sturgeon spawning rivers are shown in Table 6. 

Population data are limited, and no data are available for some subpopulations. As resources 

permit, NMFS is continuing to fund research to study and monitor Gulf sturgeon. 

Table 6. Estimated spawning population sizes for known Gulf sturgeon spawning rivers 

Estimated Population Size 

Pearl River 2921 

Pascagoula River No data available 

Escambia/Conech Rivers No data available 

Yellow River 319–1,5502 

Choctawhatchee River No data available 

Apalachicola River 62–2183 

Suwannee River 7,6504 

1

Based on fish older than age 3. Morrow, J.V., J.P. Kirk, K.J. Killgore, H. Rogillio, and C. Knight. 1998. Status and 

recovery potential of Gulf sturgeon in the Pearl River system, Louisiana-Mississippi. North American Journal of 

Fisheries Management 18:798-808. 

2

Includes only fish>100 cm TL. Berg, J.J. 2004. Population assessment of the Gulf of Mexico sturgeon in the 

Yellow River, Florida. MS Thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, USA. 77 pp. 3

Includes only fishes below the Jim Woodruff Lock and Dam. Zehfuss, K.P., J.E. Hightower, and K.H. Plllock. 

1999. Abundance of Gulf sturgeon in the Apalachicola River, Florida. Transactions of the American Fisheries 

Society 128:130-143.

4

Based on fish about 2 (>60 cm TL) or more years old. Sulak, K.J. and J.P. Clugston. 1999. Recent advances in life 

history of Gulf of Mexico sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi, in the Suwannee River, Florida, USA: a 

synopsis. Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on Sturgeon, Piacenza, Italy, July 8-11, 1997, Blackwell 

Wissenschafts-verlag, Berlin (FRG) 15(4-5):116-128. Journal of Applied Ichthyology/Zeitschrift fur angewandte 

Ichtyologie. Hamburg, Berlin. 

122 
 

 

 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

Threats and Impacts: 

Population-limiting factors for the Gulf sturgeon are thought to include barriers to historical 

spawning habitat (e.g., dams), habitat loss and degradation, and poor water quality (including 

contaminants, which may also limit recovery of the species). Recreational and subsistence 

fisheries for this species contributed to population declines in the past, but this threat was 

eliminated in 1984 when the State of Florida enacted protective measures and in 1991 when the 

species was listed under the ESA. Currently, Gulf sturgeon are likely taken in limited numbers 

as bycatch in shrimp trawl fisheries. 

Conservation Actions: 

During 2002–2004, major conservation actions were conducted for Gulf sturgeon. On March 19, 

2003, NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) designated critical habitat for the 

Gulf sturgeon. Using section 7 of the ESA, NMFS continued to consult with Federal agencies on 

actions (e.g., dredging) that may affect Gulf sturgeon or its designated critical habitat. Through 

these consultations, NMFS has worked effectively with Federal agencies to ensure they carry out 

their actions in a manner that will not jeopardize the continued existence of the species or destroy 

or adversely modify critical habitat. 

NMFS continues to fund a number of research projects with in-house dollars to improve our 

understanding of Gulf sturgeon’s movements and use of habitat5

. NMFS continues to relocate 

tagged fishes during the winter months along the coastal Gulf shores and recently initiated a 

study to examine habitat use as Gulf sturgeon enter the estuarine environment following months 

of fasting. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

Priority recovery actions needed for the Gulf sturgeon include the following: 

• Conduct an updated status review for Gulf sturgeon. 

• Update, identify, initiate, and expand partnerships with state and Federal agencies to 

identify and implement conservation activities and actions to reduce the cumulative 

effects to both the Gulf sturgeon and, in particular, its designated critical habitat (ESA 

sections 6 and 7). 

• Improve ESA section 7 consultations by improving early technical assistance for 

upcoming projects and dedicating personnel to conduct informal and formal Gulf 

sturgeon consultations. 

• Nurture the established partnership between NMFS and FWS to continue joint research 

activities and management, and to expand coordination and consistency of consultations 

conducted by the two agencies. 

• Identify and initiate ESA section 6 agreements with Gulf Coast states, and subsequently 

coordinate Gulf sturgeon recovery plan implementation proposals for funding. 

• Update the 1995 Gulf sturgeon recovery plan. The plan – a product of NOAA, FWS, and 

the Gulf States Marine Fishery Commission – synthesizes information collected on 

individual genetically distinct subpopulations to assess status of the species. The 1995 

recovery plan outlined the most important actions required for recovery of the species, 

5

 ESA section 6 funds are not currently available for Gulf sturgeon research, as no Gulf Coast state has a section 6 

agreement with NMFS that includes Gulf sturgeon. 

123 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

including (1) a better understanding of the ecosystem and essential habitats of the 

species; (2) an assessment of riverine population sizes; and (3) a refinement of life history 

investigations in each river system to locate important spawning, foraging, and 

developmental habitats. Other recovery actions listed in the 1995 document included (1) 

conduct life history studies on the biological and ecological requirements of little-known 

or inadequately sampled life stages; (2) survey, monitor, and model riverine populations; 

and (3) continue the culture of Gulf sturgeon. 

Recovery Priority Number: 8 

This ranking corresponds to a moderate degree of threat, low to moderate potential for recovery, 

and the absence of conflict with economic activities. In accordance with FWS Recovery Priority 

Guidelines, the FWS has assigned the Gulf sturgeon a priority number of “12.” The difference in 

numerical value reflects the consideration of taxonomic classification, which is used by FWS but 

not by NMFS in designating recovery priority numbers. 

124 
 

 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

Shortnose Sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) 

Date Listed: March 11, 19671 

Legal Status: Endangered 

Recovery Plan Status: 

The final recovery plan for shortnose sturgeon was published in December 1998. 

Species Status: 

The life history of shortnose sturgeon includes strong fidelity to the natal river, a high degree of 

reproductive isolation, and a significant degree of genetic distinctiveness among populations, 

which are distributed along the eastern seaboard of North America from the St. John River in 

New Brunswick, Canada, south to the Saint Johns River in Florida. Trends of abundance for 

these populations vary. No estimate of the historical population size of shortnose sturgeon is 

available, although historical accounts indicate sturgeon were abundant in many river systems. 

In the recovery plan, NMFS recognized 19 discrete populations of shortnose sturgeon. The 

status of many shortnose sturgeon populations remains undetermined, or estimates are out of 

date. NMFS is able to conduct statistically sound, quantitative population estimates for at most 2 

of the 19 populations every 2 to 3 years. As resources permit, NMFS is continuing to fund 

research to study and monitor these populations. 

In general, northern populations are healthier than those in the South. The Hudson River 

population has shown the most dramatic improvement and may be hailed as a clear metric of 

ESA success. The Hudson population, estimated at 30,000 in 1980, now exceeds 61,000 fish, 

with approximately 20,333 fish spawning annually. The Delaware population is also showing 

signs of improvement, with estimated population numbers of approximately 8,445. The 

Kennebec Complex has also shown signs of recovery: in 1998–2000, population size was 

estimated at 9,488, an increase from 7,222 for the period between 1977 and 1981. Recent 

information indicates that some populations previously thought to be extirpated (locally extinct) 

are still extant. For example, prior to 1996, NMFS and other scientists thought shortnose 

sturgeon were extirpated from the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. Between 1996 and 2004, 

53 shortnose sturgeon were documented in the Bay, including six in the Potomac River. 

In the South, many populations are at very low numbers or lack reliable population estimates. 

River-specific studies have recently been conducted to assess occurrence of adults and juveniles, 

but few recent, quantitative population estimates are available. The Cape Fear, North Carolina, 

population was estimated to be fewer than 50 individuals in 1995. The status of shortnose 

sturgeon in South Carolina rivers has been estimated only for the Savannah River (3,000 fish in 

1999) and the Cooper River (100 to 300 spawners), although the species is known to inhabit 16 

rivers in the state. Work in Georgia indicates that the Ogeechee River population was about 266 

in 1993, and preliminary results from the Altamaha River indicate that the population may be 

1

 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. 

125 
 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

greater than 2,000. In addition, after 2 years of targeted surveying in the Saint Johns River, 

Florida, a single shortnose sturgeon was collected – a first in the river since the early 1980s. 

Threats and Impacts: 

Many threats to the species are rangewide; others are specific to the Southeast. Rangewide, dam 

construction and pollution associated with industrial growth in the late 1800s and early 1900s has 

resulted in substantial loss of suitable habitat. In addition, habitat alterations from discharges, 

dredging or disposal of material into rivers, or related development activities involving 

estuaries/riverine mudflats and marshes, remain constant threats. Threats have been reduced in 

some rivers to allow shortnose sturgeon populations to grow or stabilize. In other rivers, 

particularly in the Southeast, sturgeon populations remain low or the status is unknown. 

Recent studies indicate that shortnose sturgeon, particularly in young life stages, are sensitive to 

low dissolved oxygen levels at high water temperatures. During summer, such hypoxic and 

anoxic areas are common, especially in southern rivers and in portions of the Chesapeake Bay. 

These environmental conditions pose a significant threat to shortnose sturgeon recovery. 

Bycatch, particularly in shad gillnet fisheries, adversely impacts the recovery of some shortnose 

sturgeon populations. The extent of shortnose sturgeon bycatch is not currently known. 

Conservation Actions: 

Pursuant to ESA section 7, NMFS continues to consult with Federal agencies on actions that may 

affect shortnose sturgeon. Through these consultations, NMFS has worked effectively with 

Federal agencies to ensure they carry out their actions in a manner that will not jeopardize the 

continued existence of shortnose sturgeon. For example, NMFS recently completed a 

consultation with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on water quality guidelines for 

states within the Chesapeake Bay watershed. This consultation resulted in dissolved oxygen 

standards that, if met, ensure the protection of shortnose sturgeon life stages in many areas of the 

Bay and its tributaries. NMFS continues to cooperate with the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission (FERC) on relicensing hydropower facilities to ensure safe passage (both upstream 

and downstream) of shortnose sturgeon and to ensure that adequate water flows are prescribed. 

In 1998, the Edwards Dam – the first significant impediment to shortnose sturgeon migration in 

the Kennebec River – was removed. In the past 2 years, shortnose sturgeon have been 

documented above the former dam site, which indicates that access to historic areas has been 

restored. Currently, NMFS is collaborating with other Federal, state, and local environmental 

organizations to remove several dams on the Penobscot River to restore access to historic 

habitats of many anadromous species, including shortnose sturgeon. 

NMFS is working with the State of Maryland to develop a conservation plan to minimize and 

mitigate effects of Chesapeake Bay commercial fishing on shortnose sturgeon. This plan may 

serve as a model for other states to work with NMFS to develop similar plans. 

NMFS continues to provide funding for a number of research projects to increase existing 

knowledge of the status of several shortnose sturgeon populations; however, these projects are 

limited by in-house funding. Research was conducted on the Delaware River to identify 

126 
 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

technologies that could be used to remotely detect individual sturgeon or sturgeon aggregations, 

or monitor the movements of sturgeon on a fine spatial scale. Three types of sonar systems were 

evaluated in the field to determine the efficacy in detecting and identifying shortnose sturgeon. 

Based on the positive preliminary results of this study, additional studies will be conducted to 

refine the technology. Researchers also used sonic telemetry to study the abundance and 

distribution of shortnose sturgeon in the lower, tidal Delaware River and Bay. NMFS also 

provided the initial funding to conduct a preliminary investigation of shortnose sturgeon use of 

the Potomac, Altamaha, and Santee-Cooper rivers. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

Priority recovery actions needed for the shortnose sturgeon include the following: 

• Conduct an updated status review for shortnose sturgeon. 

• Continue to gather information pertaining to individual populations – particularly those in 

the Chesapeake Bay and in the Penobscot, Cape Fear, Ogeechee, and Altamaha rivers. 

• Conduct studies to assess the sensitivity of shortnose sturgeon life stages to various 

contaminants and water quality issues (primarily low dissolved oxygen coupled with high 

temperature). 

• Work with Federal, state, and private partners to ensure adequate water flows and quality, 

and improve access to important habitats. 

• Explore habitat restoration options (e.g., creation of spawning habitat, restoration of 

access to historical habitat, restoration of foraging habitat). 

• Determine the extent and impact of bycatch on shortnose sturgeon populations and 

implement methods to reduce this bycatch. 

• Convene a meeting of the shortnose sturgeon recovery team to review the implementation 

schedule and evaluate the progress toward completing each of the recovery/research 

tasks. The recovery plan recognizes that rangewide and river-specific differences in 

recovery and research priorities exist. Therefore, two regional implementation teams are 

needed to address shortnose sturgeon recovery and research priorities on a regional basis. 

A regional meeting for each implementation team is necessary to determine priorities for 

each individual population. 

Recovery Priority Number: 5 

The recovery priority number for shortnose sturgeon is five. This determination is based on the 

following rationale: the magnitude of threat for shortnose sturgeon is moderate, particularly 

given the extremely low numbers of shortnose sturgeon in the southern portion of the species’ 

range; the recovery potential for this species is high, as many of the needed management actions 

are identified in the recovery plan; and this species is in conflict with construction or other 

development projects (e.g., bridge construction/demolition, dredging, blasting, and power plant 

operations) in most, if not all, of the species’ range. Taken together, these rankings correspond 

to a recovery priority number of five. 

127 
 

 

 

 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

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

Date Listed: April 1, 2003 

Legal Status: Endangered 

Recovery Plan Status: 

The Smalltooth Sawfish Recovery Team was convened in November 2003. The team has 

developed a recovery outline for the species and is currently developing a draft recovery plan. 

Species Status: 

The recovery outline for the smalltooth sawfish states that the population status of the species 

appears to be stable but is only a small fraction of its historic size, and that its range is greatly 

constricted. However, because Florida experienced four major hurricanes in 2004 and one of 

these (Hurricane Charley) impacted habitats supporting smalltooth sawfish, the status of the 

smalltooth sawfish DPS is now considered unknown. Congress has provided funding to study 

the effects on the smalltooth sawfish from recent hurricane activity. 

Threats and Impacts: 

The overriding threats to the species include bycatch in commercial and recreational fisheries, 

and loss and degradation of habitat. Smalltooth sawfish are caught incidentally in various types 

of fishing gear, including gillnets, otter trawls, trammel nets, seines, and hand lines. The 

urbanization of the southeastern coastal states continues to modify and remove coastal habitats 

used by the smalltooth sawfish. 

Conservation Actions: 

Appropriation for cooperative conservation and recovery efforts with states was the source of 

funding for the State of Florida’s 2003 project, “Monitoring Smalltooth Sawfish in Charlotte 

Harbor.” Florida undertook this as a part of its smalltooth sawfish conservation program
 

pursuant to its ESA section 6 cooperative agreement with NMFS. Funds have also been 

provided for 2003 and 2004 to Mote Marine Laboratory to study the abundance and movements 

of the species in south Florida. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

To ensure the smalltooth sawfish population does not decline further, studies are needed to better 

determine the habitat requirements of the species. Actions must be taken to reduce the threat of 

habitat alteration and loss. Impacts from commercial and recreational fishing need to be further 

studied, minimized, and mitigated. The public (fishermen, in particular) should be educated 

about the status of smalltooth sawfish, how to avoid incidentally catching sawfish, and how to 

release incidentally captured sawfish in a manner safe for both the fish and the fishermen. 

NFMS must develop and implement the Smalltooth Sawfish Recovery Plan. The Smalltooth 

Sawfish Recovery Team is currently developing a draft recovery plan that will provide more 

detail and prioritize actions needed to recover the species. 

128 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

Recovery Priority Number: 7 

The smalltooth sawfish has a recovery priority number of seven, based on a moderate magnitude 

of threat, a low-moderate recovery potential, and the potential for economic conflicts. 

129 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

PLANT RECOVERY 

Johnson’s Seagrass (Halophila johnsonii) 

Date Listed: September 14, 1998 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: 

The Johnson’s Seagrass Recovery Plan was finalized in September 2002. 

Species Status: 

Johnson’s seagrass is only found along approximately 200 km of coastline in southeastern 

Florida. Results from surveys indicate the species is very rare – on the order of 3 to 10 percent 

presence. In 2004, Florida experienced four major hurricanes, two of which impacted habitats 

supporting Johnson’s seagrass. Based on this recent event, the status of Johnson’s seagrass is 

now considered unknown. Congress has provided funding to study the storms’ effects on 

Johnson’s seagrass. 

Threats and Impacts: 

Johnson’s seagrass is threatened by several human and natural perturbations, including dredge 

and fill activities, construction of overwater structures, prop scarring, altered water quality, 

siltation, and storms. None of the threats identified at listing have been curtailed or eliminated. 

Cumulative impacts are a concern for the species. 

Conservation Actions: 

Conservation actions completed during 2002–2004 support the recovery actions identified in the 

Johnson’s Seagrass Recovery Plan. Funding has supported research efforts designed to 

determine whether the distribution and size of seagrass beds are expanding or declining, and to 

identify factors influencing expansion and decline. Conservation actions have also identified 

areas with persistent populations. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

Priority recovery actions needed for Johnson’s seagrass include determining the method of 

recruitment of seagrass patches, determining the maximum dispersal distances of vegetative 

fragments, and establishing permanent monitoring sites within the species’ range. 

Species Recovery Priority: 7 

Johnson’s seagrass is assigned a recovery priority of 7, based on a moderate magnitude of threat, 

a low-moderate recovery potential, and the potential for economic conflicts. 

130 
 

1955

1957

1959

1961

1963

1965

1967

1969

1971

1973

1975

1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

INVERTEBRATE RECOVERY 

White Abalone (Haliotis sorenseni) 

Date Listed: May 29, 2001 

Legal Status: Endangered 

Recovery Plan Status: 

A recovery plan is currently being developed for white abalone. It is estimated that a draft plan 

will be completed in 2005. 

Species Status: 

During a short time span of just eight years (between 1969 to 1977), over 262 metric tons of 

white abalone were fished from California waters. This intense fishing pressure (see Figure 4) 

led to alarming declines of this species, and both abundance and density of white abalone in 

California have experienced a greater than 99 percent decline compared to pre-exploitation 

estimates. Even with closure of the fishery in 1996, densities of white abalone were reduced to 

such low levels it is believed recurrent recruitment failure has occurred ever since. Without 

protection and intervention, it is projected that white abalone will go extinct in California by 

2010. This prediction is based on the following information as of 2000: (1) the observed 

reduction of the total population size to less than 0.1 percent of the pre-exploited population size; 

(2) the observed reduction in population density by at least three orders of magnitude, such that 

density is too low to allow the fertilization success necessary for natural recovery of the 

population; and (3) the last known recruitment success year for white abalone and the estimated 

maximum age of white abalone (35–40 years), suggest that, in the absence of new recruitment, 

surviving white abalone are likely to die of natural causes by 2010. 

Year 

Figure 4. California commercial catch (weight in shell) of white abalone reported in California Department of 

Fish and Game bulletins for the period 1955-1997 

In 2002, the white abalone population size was reported as 2,540 individuals, which is higher 

than the estimate of 1,600 individuals reported during the 2000 status review. In 2002 and 2003, 

remotely operated vehicle (ROV) and multi-beam sonar surveys on two banks off the southern 

California coast revealed that the white abalone population on the banks may be larger than 

0 

8000 

16000 

24000 

32000 

40000 

48000 

56000 

64000 

72000 

Kg (Weight In Shell) 

131 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

estimated for the entire range of the species. Observed densities and revised estimates of 

available white abalone habitat for the two banks were used to estimate the total population sizes 

for both banks. The estimated total abundance may be as high as 40,000 individuals on both 

banks, but confidence limits around these estimates are high and researchers are still working to 

refine the methods used to derive these estimates. 

Threats and Impacts: 

Key threats to white abalone include the following: 

• Critically low levels of abundance (< 0.1 percent of the estimated pre-exploitation 

population size) with increased distance between individuals and repeated recruitment 

failure (Allee effects) during the 1990s, resulting in a decreasing population trend – There 

is no evidence this trend has reversed in recent years. 

• Inadequate implementation of conservation and research efforts 

• Disease 

• Habitat modification through environmental/climate change 

• Habitat modification through human activities 

• Inadequate enforcement 

• Illegal harvesting 

These threats, which were key factors in the listing determination for white abalone, continue to 

imperil the species and will be considered during the recovery planning process. 

Conservation Actions: 

Conservation actions in 2002–2004 for recovery of the white abalone included the following: 

• In 2002 and 2003, NMFS conducted white abalone surveys via a ROV and multi-beam 

sonar on two banks off the southern California coast, revealing that the white abalone 

population on the banks may be larger than estimated for the entire range of the species. 

• In October 2002, NMFS completed a recovery outline to guide white abalone recovery 

efforts until a recovery plan is completed. In 2003, a multi-stakeholder White Abalone 

Recovery Team was formed and is currently developing a recovery plan. 

• The California Department of Fish and Game issued its Draft Abalone Recovery and 

Management Plan (ARMP) in 2002. The ARMP outlines specific recovery actions for 

seven species of abalone in California, six of which (including white abalone) have not 

been fished commercially or recreationally since 1997. Many of the actions (e.g., 

surveys, captive propagation, outplanting, and disease research) involve cooperation with 

NMFS. 

• In a June 2003 meeting between NMFS and the Instituto Nacional de la Pesca (INP), the 

INP stated that Mexico currently does not issue permits for harvesting white abalone. In 

addition, the INP presented preliminary results from a status review of white abalone. 

Based on responses to questionnaires sent out to the local abalone management zones 

(cooperatives), the INP identified areas along the shore and at offshore islands and banks 

that did or do contain white abalone. The INP, in cooperation with the cooperatives and 

possibly NMFS, would like to ground-truth these qualitative data by surveying specific 

locations with ROVs and multi-beam sonar (see priority actions below). However, at the 

time of the meeting, it was unknown whether funding to complete the final phases of the 

status review would be made available. 

132 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

The priority recovery actions needed for white abalone include the following: 

• Identify and monitor white abalone populations and their habitat in the wild in 

cooperation with the State of California, other Federal agencies, and the Mexican 

government. The goals of this action include: (1) improving estimates of abundance, 

density, and available habitat; (2) determining genetic structure of extant populations; (3) 

estimating growth, survival, and mortality rates of individuals through tagging studies; 

and (4) determining minimum viable population size. 

• Protect white abalone populations in the wild through enforcement of state and Federal 

regulations. 

• Initiate a captive propagation program for white abalone to carry out laboratory-based 

studies critical to the successful artificial enhancement of wild populations (e.g., disease 

research, effects of temperature and diet on growth and survival, and fecundity estimates) 

• Conduct public outreach and education. 

• Secure financial support for white abalone recovery. 

Recovery Priority Number: 3 

The white abalone status review stated that extinction of this species would occur by 2010 

without human intervention. Thus, the magnitude of threat to the species is high. The threats to 

white abalone are poorly understood, and management actions are costly and experimental with 

an uncertain probability of success. Thus, the recovery potential of this species is low to 

moderate. The recovery of white abalone is in conflict with oil pipeline and pier repair/removal 

projects, subtidal military operations, and aquaculture ventures. Considering these three criteria, 

the recovery priority number for white abalone is three. 

133 
 

 

 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

MARINE MAMMAL RECOVERY 

Seals and Sea Lions 

Caribbean Monk Seal (Monachus tropicalis) 

Date Listed: March 11, 1967 

Legal Status: Endangered 

Recovery Plan Status: 

No recovery plan exists for the Caribbean monk seal. 

Species Status: 

This species is presumed extinct. Historically, the Caribbean monk seal ranged throughout the 

Caribbean region, but population numbers were greatly reduced by sealers in the 1800s. This 

species has been known to occur in Florida, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands; however, 

no known populations currently exist in the wild. There have been no confirmed sightings since 

1952, despite extensive surveys. 

Threats and Impacts: 

A significant factor in the reduction of Caribbean monk seal numbers was overharvesting by 

sealers in the 1800s. It is possible that disturbance of breeding areas by humans may have also 

played a role. Pups’ tame behavior may have increased vulnerability to harvesting. 

Conservation Actions: 

No conservation actions were conducted during 2002–2004. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

Because this species is presumed extirpated or extinct, no priority recovery actions are needed at 

this time. 

Recovery Priority Number: 12 

Because this species is likely extirpated throughout its range, the recovery priority number for 

the Caribbean monk seal is 12. This represents a low magnitude of threat as a rare population, a 

low recovery potential, and the absence of conflict with economic activity. 

134 
 

 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

Guadalupe Fur Seal (Arctocephalus townsendi) 

Date Listed: December 16, 1985 

Legal Status: Threatened 

Recovery Plan Status: 

No recovery plan has been completed for the Guadalupe fur seal. 

Species Status: 

Commercial sealing during the 19th century reduced the once-abundant Guadalupe fur seal to 

near extinction in 1894. The size of the population prior to the commercial harvests of the 19th 

century is not known, but estimates range from 20,000 to 100,000 animals. Prior to the harvest, 

this species ranged from Monterey Bay, California, to the Revillagigedo Islands, Mexico. The 

capture of two adult males at Guadalupe Island in 1928 established the species’ return; however, 

they were not seen again until 1954. Guadalupe fur seals pup and breed mainly at Isla 

Guadalupe, Mexico. In 1997, a second rookery was discovered at Isla Benito del Este, Baja 

California, and a pup was born at San Miguel Island, California. The population is considered to 

be a single stock because all individuals are recent descendants from one breeding colony at Isla 

Guadalupe, Mexico. 

Counts of Guadalupe fur seals have been made sporadically since 1954. A few of these counts 

were made during the breeding season, but the majority were made at other times of the year. 

Documented seal counts in the literature generally provide only the total of all Guadalupe fur 

seals counted (i.e., the counts are not separated by age/sex class). The counts made during the 

breeding season, when the maximum number of animals is present at the rookery, were used to 

examine population growth. The natural logarithm of the counts was regressed against year to 

calculate the growth rate of the population. These data indicate that the population of Guadalupe 

fur seals is increasing exponentially at an average annual growth rate of 13.7 percent. The 

population was estimated to be about 7,408 animals in 1993. 

Threats and Impacts: 

Drift and set gillnet fisheries may cause incidental mortality of Guadalupe fur seals in Mexico 

and the United States. In the United States, there have been no reports of incidental mortalities 

or injuries of Guadalupe fur seals in commercial fisheries. No information is available for 

human-caused mortalities or injuries in Mexico; however, similar drift gillnet fisheries for 

swordfish and sharks exist along the entire Pacific coast of Baja California, Mexico, and may 

take animals from the same population. 

NMFS has documented strandings of Guadalupe fur seals in California. Although most of these 

animals died of natural causes, some mortalities likely can be attributed to interactions with 

commercial fisheries and marine debris. NMFS documented an increasing number of stranded 

Guadalupe fur seals on California’s Channel Islands and along the central California coast. 

Guadalupe fur seals have undergone an extreme genetic bottleneck. This reduction in genetic 

diversity may influence further population expansion. 

135 
 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

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 (IUCN) Red List and as an Appendix I 

species under CITES. 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 2002–2004 timeframe. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

As most of the range of this species lies in Mexico, no priority recovery actions are needed at 

this time for the Guadalupe fur seal. 

Recovery Priority Number: 10 

The recovery priority number for the Guadalupe fur seal is designated as 10, due to low 

magnitude of threat, a high recovery potential, and the absence of significant conflict with 

economic projects. 

136 
Site Estimation Method N Standard Deviation Nmin 

 

 

 

 

 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

Hawaiian Monk Seal (Monachus schauinslandi)

1 

Date Listed: November 23, 1976 

Legal Status: Endangered 

Recovery Plan Status: 

A recovery plan for the Hawaiian monk seal was completed in March 1983. A revision of the 

recovery plan is currently under development, with a draft expected in 2005. 

Species Status: 

The current population of Hawaiian monk seals is approximately 1,300 individuals, which is 

assumed to be well below its optimum sustainable population (OSP). The species remains far 

from achieving recovery, but conservation efforts have contributed to a marked decrease in rate 

of population decline from –4.7 to –0.7 percent per year over the last two decades. The majority 

of the population occurs in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) with various main 

breeding subpopulations (Table 7). The various subpopulations continue to exhibit differing 

trends, and most likely reflect varying factors influencing population growth at each site. The 

species is also found in lower numbers in the Main Hawaiian Islands (MHI) where population 

numbers and range both appear to be expanding. Births have been documented on most of the 

major islands and annual births in the MHI are believed to have increased since the mid-1990s. 

 Table 7. Estimated 2002 abundance of Hawaiian monk seal populations 

Population Status 

French Frigate Shoals Direct enumeration 311 NA 311 Declining 

Laysan Direct enumeration 273 NA 273 Stable 

Lisianski Direct enumeration 168 NA 168 Declining 

Pearl and Hermes Direct enumeration 228 NA 228 Declining 

Midway Island Direct enumeration 62 NA 62 Declining 

Kure Atoll Direct enumeration 114 NA 114 Declining 

Necker Corrected beach counts 48.3 19.6 35 Stable 

Nihoa Corrected beach counts 47.2 21.2 33 Stable 

Main Hawaiian Islands Aerial survey 52 NA 52 Increasing 

TOTAL 1,304 1,276 

Source: Hawaiian Monk Seal Recovery Team; NMFS PIFSC 

*Nmin = minimum population estimate for the total population, accounting for statistical uncertainty in the abundance estimates
 

Threats and Impacts: 

Habitat Concerns – Monk seals are vulnerable to human activities, especially in areas used for 

pupping and resting. Loss of terrestrial habitat following winter storms in the late 1990s reduced 

available habitat for monk seals at French Frigate Shoals (FFS) and led to high levels of shark 

predation. Continued loss of habitat at FFS and other sites in the NWHI could exacerbate this 

threat. The establishment of the NWHI Coral Reef Ecosystem Reserve, while providing the best 

protection to date for the monk seals’ NWHI marine habitat, has also enabled more research1

 Information in this section was obtained from the DRAFT Monk Seal Recovery Plan (in prep.) 

137 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

related travel into the NWHI, with associated potential for seal disturbance and introduction of 

alien species. 

Food Limitation – Food availability appears to be a likely limiting factor for population growth 

in the NWHI. Low reproductive rates, delayed maturity, reduced juvenile survival, and poor 

body condition have been identified in various subpopulations and are consistent with periodic or 

chronic food limitation. In the MHI, by contrast, seals appear to be in good condition, 

suggesting that monk seals in the MHI do not experience food limitation as in the NWHI. 

Human Interactions – Monk seals are characteristically intolerant of humans, as disturbance at 

haulout sites is known to cause abandonment of such sites. This can negatively impact survival 

and reproduction in monk seals. Most human disturbance has been removed from the NWHI, 

but policies leading to this reduction in disturbance need to be diligently preserved. Interactions 

of monk seals with humans in the MHI are frequent, although most disturbance from humans is 

not intentional or malicious. Vessel strikes are suspected in deaths of and injuries to monk seals. 

This interaction is more likely to occur in the MHI, as greater numbers of seals inhabit this area 

over time. 

Climate and Oceanographic Conditions – Changes in climate and oceanographic conditions may 

affect monk seals by changing the availability of their prey, and may result in changes in the 

number or distribution of monk seal predators. To the extent that global climate change may 

result in sea-level rise or alterations in currents, this may reduce available terrestrial habitat for 

monk seals, especially in the low-lying NWHI. 

Diseases – Several mortality events (in 1978, 2000, and 2001) have raised concern about the 

potential role of disease in seal survival. There is evidence of monk seal exposure to various 

pathogens, including multiple viruses and bacteria, as well as to parasites, which could be 

significant stressors. Increased monk seal abundance in the MHI increases this potential threat 

due to direct or indirect exposure to other wild or domestic animals. 

Male Aggression – During the 1980s and early 1990s, the primary cause of adult female 

mortality affecting the recovery potential of the monk seal population was injury and often death 

of female monk seals caused by multiple male aggression (“mobbing”) attacks. Individual males 

have also injured and killed weaned pups and juveniles of both sexes. 

Shark Predation – In recent years, there has been a significant increase in shark predation on preweaned monk seal pups born at French Frigate Shoals. This threat is significant and appears to 

be limited to FFS, but is likely a limiting factor for older seals at all sites. 

Fisheries Interactions – Direct interactions with fisheries have been documented for Hawaiian 

monk seals, including interactions with actively fishing gear, consumption of fishing discards, 

and entanglement in derelict fishery debris. Interactions have been documented with the bridle 

of a lobster trap and in nearshore gillnets, the shore-based ulua recreational fishery, and the 

bottomfish and longline fisheries. While direct interactions of monk seals with existing fisheries 

are rare, impacts to monk seals may also be generated from indirect threats by fisheries in the 

region. Removal of some species in the coral reef food web may result in undesirable changes in 

138 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

the environment or in abundance of other species. Increasing numbers of monk seals in the MHI 

will likely result in an increase in interactions with recreational shore-based fisheries. 

Marine Debris – Marine debris and derelict fishing gear have been well documented as 

entangling monk seals, and monk seals have one of the highest documented entanglement rates 

of any pinniped species. At Tern Island, French Frigate Shoals, entrapment in a sheet metal 

seawall built in 1942 presents a serious hazard to monk seals and has resulted in 37 entrapments 

and two monk seal deaths, one occurring in 2003. 

Vessel Groundings – Monk seals may be injured or killed by vessel groundings that release 

hazardous materials (including oil or fuel), rotting bait, lost gear that could entangle seals, and 

human disturbance after the grounding incident. Vessel groundings that damage coral reef 

communities may lead to outbreaks of ciguatera, which may then accumulate in monk seal prey. 

Conservation Actions: 

Although numerous conservation efforts over the past several decades have not halted the 

decline in monk seal population numbers, these efforts have slowed the decline, which in turn 

has provided more time to recover the species. The following conservation actions were 

undertaken for Hawaiian monk seal recovery in 2002–2004: 

• Shark predation and tagging studies at FFS began in 1999. During the 2000–2003 field 

seasons, 10 sharks were removed at Trig Island in the FFS, and the number of pups 

believed to have been killed by sharks at that site dropped from 25 in 1999 to 6 in 2000, 9 

in 2001, and 3 in 2002. 

• The Marine Mammal Commission sponsored a workshop on Hawaiian monk seal 

management on the beaches of the MHI in October 2002. 

• Annual field camp management of monk seals in the NWHI has been conducted since 

1982. Field camp personnel locate, disentangle, and release seals trapped in marine 

debris. 

• NMFS continues to collect, inventory, and transport potentially entangling debris to 

Honolulu for disposal at the end of each field season. 

• NMFS completed a partial seawall reconstruction at French Frigate Shoal in 2004. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

While many recovery actions are necessary for the recovery of this species, four priority actions 

are required in order to halt the decline of Hawaiian monk seal populations and to move the 

species toward recovery. The four priority recovery actions are as follows: 

• Improve the survivorship of females, particularly juveniles, in subpopulations of the 

NWHI. This requires the following actions: 

∗ Maintaining and enhancing existing protection and conservation of habitat and 

prey base; 

∗ Developing a better understanding of the factors resulting in poor juvenile 

survival (e.g., prey abundance role of internal parasites, caloric depletion while 

learning to forage, and the impact of disease and toxins); 

∗ Intervening where appropriate to ensure higher survival of juvenile and adult 

females; and 

139 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

∗ Continuing actions to protect females (adult and juvenile) from male aggression 

and to mitigate shark predation on pups whenever possible. 

• Maintain the extensive field presence during the breeding season in the NWHI. Field 

presence is critical not just to the monitoring and research efforts, but also to the active 

management and conservation of Hawaiian monk seal subpopulations in these areas. 

• Ensure the continued natural growth of the Hawaiian monk seal population in the MHI. 

This effort must include better coordination of activities between and among all parties 

interested in and affected by the increased population of monk seals in the MHI. 

• Reduce the probability of the inadvertent introduction of infectious diseases into the 

Hawaiian monk seal population. 

Recovery Priority Number: 1 

The recovery priority number for the Hawaiian monk seal is one. The magnitude of threat to this 

species is high. The recovery potential is high, and conflict is present. 

140 
 

 

 

 

 

 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

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

Date Listed: 

April 10, 1990 (listed as one threatened species) 

May 5, 1997 (split into Eastern/Western DPSs and reclassified) 

Legal Status: 

Endangered (Western DPS) 

Threatened (Eastern DPS) 

Recovery Plan Status: 

A recovery plan addressing the recovery of the Steller sea lion as a single species was completed 

in December 1992. In 1997, the species was split into two listings under the ESA – an 

endangered western DPS and a threatened eastern DPS. Development of a new, revised recovery 

plan for the Steller sea lion is currently under development, and a draft is expected in 2005. 

Species Status: 

The Steller sea lion is divided at Cape Suckling, Alaska (144o

W longitude) into two distinct 

population segments (DPSs) – a western and an eastern. 

The threatened eastern DPS is stable or increasing slightly, with a minimum population estimate 

of 31,028 individuals. 

The long-term average population trend for the endangered western DPS of Steller sea lions from 

1990-2002 is a decline of 4.3 percent per year. The minimum population estimate for this DPS 

is 34,779 individuals. Although non-pup Steller sea lions at trend sites for the western DPS 

increased 5.5 percent from 2000–2002, this was the first region-wide increase for the western 

DPS since standardized surveys began in the 1970s. The 2002 count was 5.4 percent below the 

1998 count and 36.7 percent below the 1990 count. The count for trend sites in the Gulf of 

Alaska increased 13.7 percent from 2000–2002, whereas sites in the Aleutian Islands showed 

equivocal change (down 0.8 percent). 

Threats and Impacts: 

Commercial fishing was identified as a threat to both DPSs of Steller sea lions. This threat still 

exists, but is being mitigated by the implementation of closure areas around major rookeries and 

haulouts, particularly in the range of the endangered western DPS. Another threat to the western 

DPS is the lack of understanding of the role played by other human activities and ecosystem 

processes in Steller sea lion decline. In the eastern DPS, strandings of Steller sea lions with 

gunshot wounds occur, along with strandings of sea lions entangled in non-fishery-related gear. 

Conservation Actions: 

NMFS uses Steller sea lion protection measures to guard against the possibility that groundfish 

fisheries off Alaska would jeopardize the continued existence of the western DPS of Steller sea 

lions or adversely modify their critical habitat. The management measures disperse fishing over 

time and area to protect against potential competition for important Steller sea lion prey species 

141 
 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

near rookeries and important haulouts. These Steller sea lion protection measures include the 

following: 

• Rookeries are protected by fishery closures and no-transit zones. 

• No pollock fishing is allowed within 10–20 nautical miles of 75 haulouts. 

• Fishing is controlled in part of the sea lion critical habitat. 

• Critical habitat in the Aleutian Islands is closed to pollock fishing. 

The Steller Sea Lion Recovery Team also worked with species experts, Federal and state 

agencies, industry, and environmental interests to develop a new recovery plan. The team held 

10 meetings from January 2002 to November 2004 to prepare the new draft recovery plan for 

this species. 

NMFS and external partners are engaged in numerous research activities to monitor population 

dynamics and understand the role of human activities and natural variables in the observed 

decline of the western DPS. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

Priorities for the recovery of the Steller sea lion continue to be: (1) conducting an annual, 

rangewide population census to monitor population trends; (2) assessing survival and 

reproductive rates through long-term marking programs of the western and eastern DPSs for 

development of population growth models; and (3) assessing the spatial and temporal 

distribution and availability of prey throughout the range. Additional priority recovery actions 

for the Steller sea lion will be determined by the forthcoming recovery plan. 

Recovery Priority Number: 7 (western DPS); 10 (eastern DPS) 

The recovery priority number for the western DPS of Steller sea lion is seven, due to a moderate 

magnitude of threat, a moderate recovery potential, and the presence of conflict activity. 

The recovery priority number for the eastern DPS of Steller sea lion is ten, due to a low 

magnitude of threat, high recovery potential, and no significant conflict with economic activity 

presenting a risk to recovery. 

142 
 

 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

Whales 

Blue Whale (Balaenoptera musculus) 

Date Listed: June 2, 1970 

Legal Status: Endangered 

Recovery Plan Status: 

A recovery plan for the blue whale was completed in July 1998. 

Species Status: 

Blue whales are a 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 due to commercial whaling activities. In the Southern Hemisphere, preexploitation population estimates range from 150,000 to 210,000 whales1

; recent abundance 

estimates place the population size from 400 to 1,400 whales.2 In the Southern Indian Ocean, the 

pre-exploitation population size was 10,000 whales; the abundance estimate from the 1970s is 

5,000 whales.1 There are no historical or current abundance estimates for blue whales in the 

Northern Indian Ocean. In the North Pacific, pre-exploitation population size is speculated to be 

approximately 4,900 blue whales1

; current population estimates for the entire North Pacific place 

the population size at a minimum of 3,300 blue whales3

. In the North Atlantic, estimates for the 

entire basin are considered unreliable, but range from 1,100 to 1,500 blue whales for preexploitation population size,1

 and from 100 to 555 whales for current population size. 

Three stocks of blue whales are recognized in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ): the 

western North Atlantic stock, the Hawaiian stock, and the eastern North Pacific stock. 

The distribution of the blue whale in the western North Atlantic generally extends from the 

Arctic to at least mid-latitude waters. The blue whale is considered an occasional visitor in the 

U.S. Atlantic EEZ, which may represent the current southern limit of its feeding range. The 

current range of the blue whale in the North Atlantic remains unknown. Although no reliable 

estimates of pre-whaling population size are available for the western North Atlantic stock of 

blue whales, this stock appears to have been depleted by whaling to such an extent that the 

species remains rare in some formerly important habitats. The current minimum population 

estimate for the western North Atlantic stock is 308 whales. There are insufficient data to 

determine a population trend for this stock. 

Blue whales range throughout the North Pacific Ocean. Population structure in the North Pacific 

remains uncertain, but two stocks are recognized within the U.S. EEZ: the Hawaiian and the 

eastern North Pacific (formerly California/Mexico) stocks. Pre-whaling estimates of blue whales 

1

 Gambell, R. 1976. World whale stocks. Mammal Rev. 6(1):41-53. 

2

 International Whaling Commission statistics – www.iwcoffice.org
 3

 Includes: Wade, P.R. and T. Gerrodette. 1993. Estimates of cetacean abundance and distribution in the Eastern 

Tropical Pacific. Rep. Int. Whal. Comm. 43:477–493. 

143 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

in the eastern North Pacific range from fewer than 2,000 to 6,000 whales. However, these 

figures are not actual abundance estimates but rather indices of abundance based on sightings 

from whaling boats. As such, these estimates are not comparable to current population 

estimates. 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 California waters in summer and fall and migrates south to waters 

from Mexico to Costa Rica in winter. The current minimum population estimate for this stock is 

1,138 whales, and the stock appears to be increasing in abundance. 

Threats and Impacts: 

• There is the potential for blue whales to be killed or seriously injured by ship strikes. In 

the North Atlantic in March 1998, a dead blue whale was brought into Rhode Island 

waters on the bow of a tanker. The cause of death was determined to be a ship strike, 

although the location of the ship strike is unknown. Ship strikes are also implicated in 

the deaths of four blue whales off California since 1980. The average blue whale 

mortality from ship strikes off California from 1991–1995 was 0.2 per year. Further 

mortalities of this nature probably have occurred without being reported. Several of the 

whales photo-identified off California had large gashes on the dorsal body surface, 

thought to be caused by collisions with vessels. 

• There is a potential for bycatch of blue whales in drift gillnet fisheries for swordfish and 

sharks off California and Mexico. Observer coverage in such fisheries was relatively low 

in the past but increased to 10 to 18 percent during 1991–1995. In the observed fisheries, 

no blue whale mortalities were documented; however, entanglement rates may be 

underestimated, as blue whales may break through or carry away fishing gear, perhaps 

suffering unrecorded subsequent mortalities. 

• Increasing levels of anthropogenic noise in the oceans may be a concern for blue whales. 

Conservation Actions: 

Conservation actions for the blue whale during 2002–2004 include the following: 

• Monitoring the status of the California/Oregon/Washington stock of blue whales via 

shipboard surveys, conducted every 3 years with Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA) funding 

• Placing observers onboard vessels in the California/Oregon swordfish/thresher shark drift 

gillnet fishery to monitor for the take of protected species, including marine mammals 

(MMPA funding) 

• Implementing marine mammal take reduction measures identified in the Pacific Offshore 

Cetacean Take Reduction Plan (including the use of acoustic pingers) to reduce the 

bycatch of marine mammals (MMPA funding) 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: Continue current recovery actions. 

Recovery Priority Number: 7 

This priority number ranking reflects a moderate magnitude of threat, low to moderate recovery 

potential, and the presence of conflict. 

144 
 

 

 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

Bowhead Whale (Balaena mysticetus) 

Date listed: June 2, 1970 

Legal status: Endangered 

Recovery Plan status: 

No recovery plan has been completed for the bowhead whale. 

Species status: 

Bowhead whales are distributed in seasonally ice-covered waters of the Arctic and near Arctic, 

with five stocks currently recognized by the International Whaling Commission. Four small 

stocks occur in the Sea of Okhotsk, Davis Strait, Hudson Bay, and the offshore waters of 

Spitsbergen; these small bowhead stocks are comprised of only a few tens to a few hundreds 

of individuals. The only stock found within U.S. waters is the western Arctic stock, which 

comprises the largest population of this species. The western Arctic stock migrates annually 

from wintering areas in the northern Bering Sea, through the Chukchi Sea in the spring, to the 

Beaufort Sea where it spends much of the summer before returning to the Bering Sea in the fall. 

The most current abundance estimate for western Arctic bowhead whales (from ice-based counts 

in the spring of 2001) is 10,470 whales, and data indicate the population is increasing at 3.4 

percent per year for the period 1978–2001. Pre-exploitation population levels are estimated at 

10,400–23,000 whales. A status review for this species will be conducted in 2005, with a 

possibility of changing the ESA listing status of the bowhead whales. 

Threats and Impacts: 

Threats and impacts to the bowhead whale population include oil and gas exploration and 

development, and leasing within waters of the State of Alaska and on the Outer Continental Shelf 

(OCS). Most of the year, bowhead whales are closely associated with sea ice. During the 

summer, this population occurs in relatively ice-free waters in the southern Beaufort Sea – an 

area often exposed to industrial activity related to petroleum exploration and extraction. 

Increasing oil and gas development in the Arctic will lead to an increased risk of various forms 

of pollution to bowhead whale habitat, including oil spills, toxic and nontoxic waste, and noise 

due to higher levels of traffic as well as exploration and drilling operations. The area of 

disturbance is localized, however. Since the western Arctic bowhead whale population is 

approaching its pre-exploitation population size and has been increasing at a roughly constant 

rate for over 20 years, the impacts of oil and gas industry on individual survival and reproduction 

are likely to be minor. 

Another element of concern is the potential for climate change, which will probably affect high 

northern latitudes more than other locations. Evidence gathered over the past 10 to 15 years 

indicates a shift in regional weather patterns in the Arctic region. Ice-associated animals, such as 

the bowhead whale, may be sensitive to changes in Arctic weather, sea-surface temperatures, or 

ice extent, and the concomitant effect on prey availability. There are insufficient data to make 

reliable predictions of the effects of any Arctic climate change on bowhead whales. 

145 
 

 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

A minor additional concern for bowhead whales is the possibility of fishing gear interactions and 

entanglements. The latest stock assessment report for bowhead whales (2003) documents 10 

cases of rope or net entanglement since 1978. Two of these reported cases involved bowhead 

whale entanglement in crab pot gear, one in 1993 and one in 1999; the average rate of 

entanglement in crab pot gear for 1997–2001 is 0.2. 

Conservation Actions: 

Conservation actions for the bowhead whale during 2002–2004 include the following: 

• Time and area restrictions for indirect take of whales due to commercial activities 

• Mitigation of oil and gas activities through section 7 consultations under the ESA 

• Mitigation of oil and gas activities under section 101(a)(5) of the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act (MMPA) 

• International Whaling Commission (IWC) actions 

• Section 119 co-management agreements under the MMPA 

In addition, several papers on bowhead whale stock structure were presented at the 2004 

International Whaling Commission Scientific Committee (IWC SC) Meeting, from which a team 

of United States researchers developed a provisional plan for studying the stock structure of 

bowhead whales. This provisional plan underwent review at a workshop hosted by the NMFS 

Alaska Fisheries Science Center, and a summary report will be submitted to the Bowhead-RightGray Subcommittee at the 2005 IWC SC Meeting. 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

Continue current conservation actions. 

Recovery Priority Number: 9 

This priority number reflects a low magnitude of threat (due to increasing population numbers), 

high recovery potential, and presence of conflict. 

146 
 

 

 

 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

Fin Whale (Balaenoptera physalus) 

Date Listed: June 2, 1970 

Legal Status: Endangered 

Recovery Plan Status: 

No recovery plan currently exists for the fin whale. A draft joint recovery plan was generated in 

1998 for the fin and sei whales; the plan is currently being updated. 

Species Status: 

Fin whales occur in oceans of both Northern and Southern Hemispheres between 20–75o N and S 

latitudes. Worldwide, fin whales were severely depleted by commercial whaling activities. The 

pre-exploitation abundance of fin whales in the Southern Hemisphere is estimated at 400,000 

whales.1

 The most current population estimate (1979) for fin whales in the southern oceans is 

85,200 whales.1

 In the North Pacific, the total pre-exploitation population size of fin whales is 

estimated at 42,000–45,000 whales.2 The most recent abundance estimate (1991) for fin whales 

in the entire North Pacific basin is between 14,620 and 18,630 whales. In the North Atlantic, the 

pre-exploitation population size for fin whales is estimated at 30,000–50,000 whales3; current 

estimates of fin whale abundance for the entire North Atlantic range from 27,700 to 82,000 

whales.4 

The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) stock assessment reports for the fin whale 

recognize one stock of fin whales in the U.S. North Atlantic Ocean (western North Atlantic 

stock) and three stocks of fin whales in the U.S. North Pacific: the California/Oregon/ 

Washington stock, the Hawaii stock, and the Alaska/Northeast Pacific stock. 

Western North Atlantic stock 

An estimate of 2,814 fin whales for the western North Atlantic stock was derived from a 1999 

line transect sighting survey conducted by a ship and airplane covering waters from Georges 

Bank to the mouth of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. This abundance estimate is considered the best 

available for the western North Atlantic fin whale stock because it is relatively recent. However, 

this estimate must be considered extremely conservative in view of the known range of the fin 

whale in the entire western North Atlantic, and the uncertainties regarding population structure 

and exchange between surveyed and unsurveyed areas. The status of this stock relative to its 

optimum sustainable population (OSP) size in the U.S. Atlantic Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) 

is unknown, and there are insufficient data to determine a population trend for western North 

Atlantic fin whales at this time. 

1

 International Whaling Commission. 1979. Report of the subcommittee on protected species. Annex G, Appendix 

I. Rep. Int. Whal. Comm. 29: 84-86. 2

 Ohsumi, S., and S. Wada. 1974. Status of whale stocks in the North Pacific, 1972. Rep. Int. Whal. Comm. 24:114–
 

126. 

3

 Sergeant, D. E. 1977. Stocks of fin whales Balaenoptera physalus L. in the North Atlantic Ocean. Rep. Int. Whal. 

Comm. 27:460– 473. 

4

 International Whaling Commission statistics – www.iwcoffice.org
 

147 
 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

North Pacific stocks 

The initial pre-whaling population of fin whales in the entire North Pacific, as mentioned above, 

is estimated to be 42,000 to 45,000 whales. The minimum population estimate for the 

California/Oregon/Washington stock of fin whales from 1996 and 2001 summer/fall ship surveys 

is approximately 2,541 whales. However, reliable estimates of the current minimum population 

size and population trend for this stock are not available. Reliable estimates of minimum 

population size and population trend for the Hawaii and Alaska/Northeast Pacific stocks are 

currently not available. 

Threats and Impacts: 

Western North Atlantic stock 

Fin whales from the western North Atlantic stock are injured and killed at least occasionally by 

inshore fishing gear (e.g., gillnets and lobster lines) off eastern Canada and the United States, 

and are occasionally injured or killed by ship strikes off the U.S. East Coast. NMFS’ records on 

this stock from 1997 through 2001 yield an average of 2.0 human-caused mortalities per year – 

0.6 per year resulting from fishery interactions or entanglements (0.2 in U.S. waters, 0.2 in 

Canadian waters, 0.2 in Bermudan waters), and 1.4 due to collisions with vessels (all in U.S. 

waters). Fin whales are also among the main attractions of whale watching enterprises in eastern 

Canada and the northeastern United States and, as a result, these whales are regularly subjected 

to close and persistent following by vessels. 

North Pacific stocks 

Threats and impacts to the Hawaiian and Alaska/Northeast Pacific stocks of fin whales are 

currently unknown. 

Threats and impacts to the California/Oregon/Washington stock include interaction with 

commercial fisheries. NMFS has observed the incidental take of fin whales in the 

California/Oregon swordfish/thresher shark drift gillnet fishery (estimated incidental take of one 

fin whale per year from the California/Oregon/Washington stock). NMFS expects fin whales are 

also taken in drift gillnet fisheries off Baja California, but detailed information regarding takes in 

these fisheries is not available. 

There is the potential for large whales, such as fin whales, to be killed or seriously injured by 

ship strikes. Ship strikes have been implicated in the deaths of four blue whales off California 

since 1980, and in the deaths of one fin whale in 1997 and one in 2001. Additional mortality 

from ship strikes probably goes unreported because the whales do not strand or, if they do strand, 

they do not always have obvious signs of trauma. The average observed annual mortality due to 

ship strikes is 0.4 fin whales per year for the period 1997–2001. 

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. 

148 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

Conservation Actions: 

Western North Atlantic stock 

For conservation measures concerning fishing gear interactions, see the section in this report on 

the Northern Right Whale. North Atlantic right, humpback, and fin whales are all managed 

under the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan (ALWTRP) implemented through the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act. 

North Pacific stocks 

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 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 Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA) funding 

• Placing observers onboard vessels in the California/Oregon swordfish/thresher shark drift 

gillnet fishery to monitor for the take of protected species, including marine mammals 

(MMPA funding) 

• Implementing marine mammal take reduction measures identified in the Pacific Offshore 

Cetacean Take Reduction Plan (including the use of acoustic pingers) to reduce the 

bycatch of marine mammals (MMPA funding) 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

Continue current conservation actions. 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. 

149 
 

 

 

 

 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) 

Date Listed: June 2, 1970 

Legal Status: Endangered 

Recovery Plan Status: 

In November 1991, NMFS published a final recovery plan for the humpback whale. 

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.1

 Recent abundance estimates for the humpback whale south of 

60oS in summer (i.e., incomplete) range from 5,900 to 16,800 whales.2 No current or historical 

abundance estimates are available for humpbacks in the Indian Ocean. In the entire North 

Pacific Ocean prior to 1905, it is estimated that there were 15,000 humpback whales basin-wide.3 

In 1966, after heavy commercial exploitation, humpback abundance was estimated at 1,000 to 

1,200 whales,3

 although it is unclear if estimates were for the entire North Pacific or just the 

eastern North Pacific. There are no reliable estimates for current humpback whale abundance in 

the entire North Pacific. In the North Atlantic, no estimate is available for pre-exploitation 

abundance basin-wide; a 1999 estimate places the humpback whale population at 10,600 

individuals for the entire basin.4 

Four stocks of humpback whales are recognized in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ): 

the Gulf of Maine stock in the Atlantic Ocean, and the western North Pacific, central North 

Pacific, and eastern North Pacific stocks in the Pacific Ocean. 

Western North Atlantic – Gulf of Maine stock 

The humpback whale population in the North Atlantic Ocean can be divided into six relatively 

discrete stocks, defined by their fidelity to spring/summer/fall feeding grounds. In the western 

North Atlantic, humpback whales feed over a range encompassing the eastern coast of the United 

States (including the Gulf of Maine), the Gulf of St. Lawrence, Newfoundland/Labrador, and 

western Greenland. The two other North Atlantic feeding grounds occur off Iceland and northern 

Norway. In winter, whales from all feeding areas (including the Gulf of Maine) mate and calve 

primarily in the West Indies, where spatial and genetic mixing among subpopulations occurs. It 

is apparent not all whales migrate to the West Indies every winter, and significant numbers of 

animals are found in mid- and high-latitude regions at this time. 

1

 Gambell, R. 1976. World whale stocks. Mammal Rev. 6(1):41-53 

2

 International Whaling Commission statistics – www.iwcoffice.org
 3

 Rice, D.W. 1978. The humpback whale in the North Pacific: distribution, exploitation, and numbers. In K. S. 

Norris and R. R. Reeves (Editors), Report on a Workshop on Problems Related to Humpback Whales (Megaptera 

novaeangliae) in Hawaii, p. 29–44. Contr. Rep. to U.S. Mar. Mammal Comm., NTIS PB-280-794. 4

 Smith, T.D., J. Allen, P.J. Clapham, P.S. Hammond, S. Katona, F. Larsen, J. Lien, D. Matilla, P.J. Palsbøll, J. 

Sigurjónsson, P.T. Stevick, and N. Øien. 1999. An oceanbasin-wide mark-recapture study of the North Atlantic 

humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae). Mar. Mamm. Sci. 15:1–32. 

150 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

Estimating abundance for the Gulf of Maine stock has proved problematic. Several approaches 

have been investigated, including mark-recapture estimates, minimum population size, and linetransect estimates. The best estimate of abundance for Gulf of Maine humpback whales provides 

a minimum population estimate of 647 humpback whales. Current data suggest the Gulf of 

Maine humpback whale stock is steadily increasing in size. 

Western North Pacific stock 

The humpback whale population in the North Pacific Ocean can be divided into three relatively 

separate stocks: the western North Pacific, the central North Pacific, and the eastern North 

Pacific stocks. The western North Pacific stock of humpback whales is generally defined as 

those whales migrating between winter/spring calving and mating areas near Japan to 

summer/fall feeding areas in Alaskan waters, likely west of the Kodiak Archipelago (in the 

Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands). 

The western North Pacific stock of humpback whales is estimated at 394 animals, based on data 

collected by nine independent research groups and photographs taken between 1991 and 1993. 

More recent photo-identification effort has occurred, but because of uncertainty in assigning 

animals to a stock, this information was not used to calculate revised abundance estimates. No 

population trend has been calculated for this stock. 

Central North Pacific stock 

The central North Pacific stock of humpback whales is generally defined as those whales 

migrating between winter/spring calving and mating areas in the Hawaiian Islands to 

summer/fall feeding areas off northern British Columbia and southeast Alaska, Gulf of 

Alaska/Prince William Sound, west to Kodiak Island. 

The central North Pacific stock of humpback whales is estimated at 4,005 individuals, based on 

data collected by nine independent research groups and photographs taken between 1991 and 

1993. More recent photo-identification effort has occurred that identifies animals in what are 

believed to be discrete feeding aggregations within the central north Pacific stock: Prince 

William Sound (estimate of 149 animals), Kodiak Archipelago (estimate of 651 animals), and 

Southeast Alaska (estimate of 951 animals). Some of these estimates should be considered 

minimum population estimates. Data support an increasing population size for the entire central 

stock; however, the limited nature of the data does not support a trend estimate at this time. 

Eastern North Pacific stock 

The eastern North Pacific stock of humpback whales is generally defined as those whales 

migrating between winter/spring calving and mating areas off coastal Central America and 

Mexico to summer/fall feeding areas from coastal California north to British Columbia. 

The minimum population estimate for the eastern North Pacific humpback whale stock is 681 

individuals. Mark-recapture population estimates increased steadily from the period 1988–1990 

to the period 1997–1998, at about 8 percent per year. The stock appears to have decreased in 

abundance between 1998 and 1999, but the most recent mark-recapture estimate shows the 

eastern North Pacific stock appears to be increasing in abundance. 

151 
 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

Threats and Impacts: 

Western North Atlantic Ocean – Gulf of Maine stock 

The total level of human-caused mortality and serious injury is unknown, but the level reported 

in the most recent stock assessment report (2003) for the Gulf of Maine stock of humpback 

whales is a minimum of 2.6 animals per year. Given the potential biological removal rate (PBR) 

of 1.3, no mortality or serious injury for this stock can be considered insignificant. The humancaused mortality and serious injury estimates are derived from two components: (1) nonobserved fishery entanglement records and (2) ship strike records. 

North Pacific Ocean stocks 

• Incidental take in fisheries 

∗ Threats and impacts to the humpback whale include incidental catch in 

commercial fisheries. The estimated human related annual mortality rate in 

commercial fisheries for the western North Pacific stock is 0.8, which exceeds the 

calculated PBR level of 0.7 animals. At least one of the mortalities occurred in the 

United States. 

∗ Incidental catch in commercial fisheries also impacts the central North Pacific 

stock. The estimated annual mortality and serious injury rate for the entire stock is 

5.0, with 3.6 of that total being fishery-related. This represents a minimum 

estimate and it is unclear whether the level of human-caused mortality and serious 

injury exceeds the PBR level of 7.4 animals for the entire stock. 

∗ NMFS has observed the incidental take of humpback whales in the 

California/Oregon swordfish/thresher shark drift gillnet fishery. NMFS expects 

humpback whales are also taken in drift gillnet fisheries off Baja California, but 

detailed information regarding takes in these fisheries is not available. 

• Ship strikes 

∗ There is a potential for humpback whales to be killed or seriously injured by ship 

strikes; ship strikes are implicated in the deaths of four blue whales off California 

since 1980. 

• Entanglement 

∗ North Pacific humpback whales are impacted by entanglement in commercial, 

sport, or subsistence fisheries (mainly pot gear). 

∗ Because humpback whales migrate annually from Hawaii to northern British 

Columbia, Southeast Alaska and Prince William Sound west to Kodiak, the 

potential exists for them to become entangled in gear from several fisheries and 

possibly drag an extensive amount of gear. Longline gear, crab pots, and other 

non-fishery-related lines have been implicated in humpback whale entanglements 

in Hawaii. 

• Whale watching 

∗ The central North Pacific stock is the focus of a developed whale watching 

industry on its wintering grounds in the Hawaiian Islands. The feeding 

aggregation in southeast Alaska is also the focus of a developing whale watching 

industry that exerts pressure in localized geographic areas of southeast Alaska. 

• Habitat loss or degradation 

∗ Loss of habitat is directly linked to increased human activity in and along marine 

environments. Landfills, harbors, shipping channels, fisheries, and aquaculture 

152 
 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

(fish farms) may all occupy or destroy areas needed by humpbacks for resting and 

breeding. Recreational use of marine areas, including resort development and 

increased boat traffic (thrill craft), may displace whales that would normally use 

an area. The growth of the whale watching industry is a concern as preferred 

habitats may be abandoned if disturbance levels are too high. In Hawaii, acoustic 

impacts from vessel operation, oceanographic research using active sonar, and 

military operations are also of increasing concern. 

Conservation Actions: 

The following section describes conservation actions undertaken during 2002–2004 for the 

recovery of humpback whales: 

Western North Atlantic – Gulf of Maine stock 

For conservation measures concerning fishing gear interactions, see the section on the Northern 

Right Whale. North Atlantic right, humpback, and fin whales are all managed under the Atlantic 

Large Whale Take Reduction Plan implemented through the Marine Mammal Protection Act. 

Although the right whale Ship Strike Strategy does not apply to humpback whales, it is expected 

to yield a cumulative benefit to humpback whales. 

North Pacific Ocean stocks 

• Reduction of incidental take 

∗ Much effort in 2002–2004 was put into disentangling animals caught in fishing 

gear in southeast Alaska, and in education and outreach regarding entangled 

animals. 

∗ Regulations were developed in 2001 to limit the approach of vessels to humpback 

whales within waters off Alaska to minimize “taking” from approaches. These 

regulations mirror those already in existence in waters off Hawaii, giving the 

animals the same protections on the summering grounds as on the wintering 

grounds. 

∗ NMFS implements marine mammal take reduction measures identified in the 

Pacific Offshore Cetacean Take Reduction Plan (including the use of acoustic 

pingers) to reduce the bycatch of marine mammals, with Marine Mammal 

Protection Act (MMPA) funding. 

∗ The Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary continues to 

play a leading role – locally, nationally, and internationally – in mitigating the 

impact to humpback whales from entanglement in man-made ropes and nets. 

Locally, the sanctuary is conducting training of select personnel, acquiring 

specialized equipment caches for islands with histories of events, and responding 

to all calls to NOAA concerning humpback whales in distress. 

∗ The Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary Advisory 

Council and its partners convened a Ship Strike Mitigation Meeting with resource 

managers, scientists, and representatives of the maritime community to assess 

ship strike risks in Hawaii and to identify possible actions to reduce the 

occurrence of vessel/whale collisions. 

∗ The Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary is working 

with the U.S. Coast Guard, the State of Hawaii, the Sanctuary Advisory Council, 

153 
 

 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

and the Ocean Tourism Coalition (OTC) to conduct a study to create a statewide 

anonymous reporting system for whale and vessel collisions in Hawaiian waters. 

• 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. Taking place from 2004 to 

2007, the project will involve research conducted in many different regions 

frequented by the North Pacific stocks of humpback whales. 

∗ The Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary 

(HIHWNMS) released the results of a research project describing the distribution 

and composition of humpbacks off the west coast of the Big Island of Hawaii.5 

∗ The Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary staff have 

continued to build partnerships (e.g., with Fagatele Bay National Marine 

Sanctuary and the Center for Coastal Studies) to conduct marine mammal 

surveys, concentrating on humpback whales, in the waters surrounding American 

Samoa. Because more humpbacks were found than had been expected, project 

staff have been invited to attend the Southern Ocean Whale Research 

Consortium’s annual meeting to place the role of the American Samoan 

humpback population in the larger context of the South Pacific. 

• Education and outreach 

∗ The 2002 State of the Sanctuary Report for the Hawaiian Island Humpback Whale 

National Marine Sanctuary provides an overview of activities, programs, and 

projects, as well as marine resources and management issues pertinent to the 

sanctuary’s development. 

∗ Ship strike mitigation signage (boater safety signs) to remind Hawaii’s ocean 

users to practice safe boating around whales were finalized and will soon be 

installed at six of the State’s most popular harbor boat ramps. 

∗ The Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary is involved in 

numerous local education and outreach initiatives aimed at increasing ocean 

literacy among residents and visitors to Hawaii. These programs include the 

Hiialakia Education Cruise to teach students about conservation issues impacting 

Hawaii, supporting native Hawaiian culture and education, hosting the National 

Geographic Field Studies program, the two day “Dive Into Education” workshop 

which exposed local teachers to ocean education, the distribution of newspaper 

inserts dedicated to increasing public knowledge on marine conservation, 

educational school visits, and lunchtime whale watches. 

5

 Trends in Relative Distribution, Megaptera novaeangliae, in Kawaihae Bay, Island of Hawaii 1988 – 2003. 

Researchers: C.M. Gabriele, S.H. Rickards, S.E. Yin, and A.S. Frankel. Affiliation: Hawaii Marine Mammal 

Consortium. 

154 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

Western North Atlantic – Gulf of Maine stock 

NMFS will continue its efforts to address human-caused m ortality and serious injury of 

humpback whales associated with gear and vessel interactions. Additional work is neede d to 

complete the development and implementation of a more comprehensive ship strike strategy th at 

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 humpback behavior once whales 

become entangled. Additional studies must also be conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of 

the right whale measures on humpback entanglements. 

North Pacific Ocean stocks 

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 priori ty 

for education and mitigation. Other priority actions needed in the North Pacific include: 

• Ensure completion of the SPLASH research project 

• Ensure full analysis and dissemination of SPLASH re sults. NOAA can be best informed 

of the progress and nature of North Pacific humpback recovery by fully analyzing the 

results of the 3-year SPLASH effort and making the results available to government 

managers and other conservation organizations. 

• Continue collaborative threat reduction and impac t mitigation efforts. Current efforts to 

address entanglement, ship strike, habitat degradation, and other threats and impacts 

should be continued and enhanced. Collaboration between NMFS, NOAA National 

Marine Sanctuaries Program (NMSP), the National Park Service (NPS), the States of 

Hawaii and Alaska, and other organizations should be further encouraged and facilitat ed. 

• Continue education and outreach – Community support for conservation should be 

further strengthened through continued NOAA-facilitated, collaborative education a nd 

outreach activities. 

Recovery Priority Number: 3 

The species recovery priority refl ects a high magnitude of threat, a medium recovery potential 

(because levels of fishing gear and vessel interactions appear to be increasing), and the presenc e 

of conflict (because restrictions on commercial fishing and shipping would potentially create a 

significant conflict). 

155 
 

 

 

 

 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

Northern Right Whale (Eubalaena glacialis) 

Date Listed: June 2, 1970 

Legal Status: Endangered 

Recovery Plan Status: 

In December 1991, NMFS published the recovery plan for the northern right whale. NMFS 

revised the recovery plan for the North Atlantic right whale population in 2001 and requested 

public comment on the draft. Because significant changes were made to the draft, NMFS 

published a new draft for public comment on August 31, 2004. A final revised plan will be 

published in 2005. 

A recovery plan addressing the North Pacific population of the northern right whale is currently 

under development, pending taxonomic and listing decisions.1 

Species Status: 

The pre-exploitation distribution of the northern right whale in the North Atlantic probably 

included coastal and continental shelf waters in temperate to subarctic latitudes. Postexploitation distribution is much more limited. It remains unclear whether the present North 

Atlantic right whale population abundance is static or in decline. In the eastern North Atlantic, 

the northern right whale population probably numbers only in the low tens of animals at best, 

and based on the rarity of sightings and the current distribution and migration patterns (which 

remain unknown), the eastern North Atlantic population is not considered a functioning extant 

unit and may be considered a “relict” population(s).2 In the western North Atlantic, the northern 

right whale minimum population estimate was 291 individuals in 1998, based on a census of 

individual whales identified using photo-identification techniques. However, because of 

heterogeneity of capture probabilities (relating to either distribution of individuals and/or of 

sighting effort), it is difficult to calculate an unbiased point estimate of abundance for this 

population; furthermore, measures of survival are considered to be more important than absolute 

abundance estimates. The size of the stock is considered extremely low relative to its estimated 

optimal sustainable population (OSP) level. 

1 Since the listing of the right whale in 1970, NMFS has interpreted right whale taxonomy as consisting of two 

separate species – northern right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) in the Northern Hemisphere, and southern right whale 

(Eubalaena australis) in the Southern Hemisphere – which was consistent with the view of most taxonomists at the 

time of listing. On April 10, 2003, NMFS published a final rule (68 FR 17560) that split the single species 

“northern right whale” (Eubalaena glacialis) into two separate species – the North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena 

glacialis) and the North Pacific right whale (Eubalaena japonica). However, NMFS has determined that this 

technical change was procedurally and substantively flawed, and on January 11, 2005 (70 FR 1830), published a 

final rule removing the technical revision and reinstating the designation of one endangered right whale species in 

the Northern Hemisphere – Eubalaena glacialis. NMFS plans to conduct a status review of the northern right whale 

to determine whether it consists of more than one species as defined by the ESA, and to follow the appropriate ESA 

section 4 listing procedures if necessary to reclassify the northern population as two separate species.

2

 Best, P.B. 2001. Report of the workshop on the comprehensive assessment of right whales: a worldwide 

comparison. J. Cetacean Res. Man. (Special Issue) 2:1- 60. 

156 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

Very little information exists on the northern right whale population in the North Pacific. The 

pre-exploitation size of this stock probably exceeded 11,000 animals, but whaling from 1835 to 

1971 severely reduced the population. Soviet catches of right whales from 1963 to 1966 almost 

wiped out the eastern North Pacific population, which today likely numbers in the tens of 

animals. Surveys from the summer of 2004 in the Bering Sea indicate a minimum population 

count of approximately 24 animals, including three calves. In the western North Pacific, the 

population is thought to be in the hundreds, but no reliable estimate is available. The size of both 

eastern and western North Pacific populations is extremely low relative to the OSP. 

Threats and Impacts: 

Ship collisions and fishing gear entanglements are the most common anthropogenic causes of 

mortality in the western North Atlantic right whale population. Other potential threats to this 

population are habitat degradation, noise, contaminants, bombing activities, and climate and 

ecosystem change. The total level of human-caused mortality and serious injury is unknown, but 

the reported human-caused mortality and serious injury contained within the most recent stock 

assessment report (2003) is a minimum of 2.07 per year. Given that the potential biological 

removal rate (PBR) is set at zero, no mortality or serious injury for this stock can be considered 

insignificant. 

The threats and impacts to right whales in the North Pacific are currently unknown because the 

distribution of these animals is not well understood. Entanglement in gear could be a threat; 

however, the extent of this problem is not well defined. Gillnets were implicated in the death of 

a right whale off the Kamchatka Peninsula (Russia) in 1989. No other incidental takes of right 

whales are known to have occurred in the North Pacific, but entanglement scars have been 

observed on some animals. Any mortality incidental to commercial fisheries would be 

considered significant. It is possible that right whales in the North Pacific are vulnerable to 

mortality from ship strikes and entanglements in fishing gear, as these are significant sources of 

right whale mortality in the North Atlantic. However, due to the rare occurrence of North Pacific 

right whales and their scattered distribution, it is impossible to assess the threat of ship strikes or 

entanglement to the North Pacific stock of right whales at this time. 

Conservation Actions: 

The following conservation actions were undertaken between 2002 and 2004 for the North 

Atlantic right whale: 

The NMFS Northeast Region (NER) has drafted a comprehensive management plan that 

addresses interactions between fisheries and the North Atlantic right whale population. The 

strategy identifies the shortfalls of NMFS’ management scheme and NER’s ongoing and future 

actions designed to rectify these shortfalls. The foundation of the strategy focuses on fishing 

regulations, gear research, outreach and education, enforcement, cooperative efforts with states, 

whale research, disentanglement, monitoring and evaluation, coordination with Canada, and 

critical habitat. The following activities undertaken by NER illustrate the steps taken by NMFS 

to reduce entanglement and serious injury as a result of entanglement: 

157 
 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

Outreach and Education 

• Conducted dockside outreach meetings in Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New 

Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina and Florida 

• Collaborated with fishing associations throughout the mid-Atlantic on Atlantic Large 

Whale Take Reduction Plan (ALWTRP) issues 

• Provided Level 1 disentanglement training for fishermen, the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), 

and Marine Patrol 

• Expanded weak link (gear designed to break if entangled) photo workbook 

• Improved ALWTRP outreach by creating a Dynamic Area Management (DAM) Zone 

Outreach Supplement for each DAM zone 

• Developed NER Right Whale Grants Program website 

ALWTRP Actions 

• Conducted DAM program implementation, with approximately 20 DAMs implemented 

between October 2002 and September 2004 

• Drafted a proposed rule to amend the ALWTRP 

• Prepared the Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the next phase of rulemaking to 

implement gear modifications to the ALWTRP 

• Developed a comprehensive management plan that addresses interactions between 

fisheries and the North Atlantic right whale 

• Convened a meeting of the ALWTRT in February 2004 

Ship Strike Coordination 

• Prepared the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) for the Ship Strike 

Strategy and conducted press interviews and presented the strategy at various meetings 

• Briefed port groups and interested shipping parties from Maine to New Jersey during the 

development of the Ship Strike Strategy 

• Negotiated and prepared a Letter of Agreement with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

Cape Cod Canal, to implement the first completed element of the NMFS Ship Strike 

Strategy 

• Developed a Ship Strike/Whale Avoidance web page, and maintained and expanded the 

Ship Strike/Whale Avoidance distribution list 

• Distributed over 1,700 right whale “pilot” packages to shipping industry members 

• Coordinated with the Office of Coastal Survey, Coast Pilot Branch, to incorporate 

updated right whale information in the Coast Pilots publication 

• Coordinated with the USCG District 1 to include weekly information on right whales in 

the Local Notice to Mariners 

• Improved the effectiveness and compliance of the Mandatory Ship Reporting System 

from 60 to 76 percent 

• Investigated and researched possible ship strikes of right whales in the Great South 

Channel 

Enforcement Coordination 

• Conducted investigations on gear removed from entangled whales, dolphins, and sea 

turtles 

158 
 

 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

• Provided enforcement support: 

∗ Provided training on ALWTRP and disentanglement issues to the USCG in 

alternating months 

∗ Held Joint Enforcement Agreement (JEA) training seminars with Maine, 

Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Virginia 

Northeast Implementation Team (NEIT) for Right Whale Recovery 

• Restructured the NEIT to focus on ship strike reduction 

• Solicited, evaluated, and approved NEIT research proposals focused on ship strike 

mitigation measures 

• Negotiated a cost-share agreement with the Massachusetts Port Authority for the 

economic analysis of the Ship Strike Strategy 

Navy Coordination 

• Convened the Navy/NMFS Gulf of Maine Complex meeting to discuss comprehensive 

ESA section 7 consultations on all Gulf of Maine naval activities 

• Convened the Brunswick/NMFS working group meeting to coordinate naval bombing 

training activities in Gulf of Maine 

• Developed a procedure for the Navy to provide a monthly ordnance exercise schedule 

and for NOAA to provide advance notification to the Navy for any Gulf of Maine DAMs 

that might overlap with Navy exercise areas 

Gear Research 

• Placed load cells on lobster, gillnet, shark, black sea bass, and conch fisheries throughout 

the mid-Atlantic and Southeast regions 

• Tested methods to achieve a lower profile groundline through a collaborative project with 

the Maine Division of Marine Resources 

• Coordinated gear research with fishermen in the following modified gear projects: 

∗ Time tension line cutter 

∗ Zap buoy/pop-up buoy system 

∗ Zap link (detachable when the groundline is pulled in the non-hauling direction) 

∗ Modified, low-profile lobster trawl groundline 

∗ Sea trials for 1,100 lb weak rope for gillnet head rope 

∗ Rope abrasion machine 

∗ Float rope recycling testing for use in wood composite decking material 

∗ Sea trial testing of Seasonal Area Management (SAM) gear in non-SAM areas 

Grant Programs 

• Implemented the NER Research Grant Program 

• Conducted the Mini Grant Program for small gear research projects under $20,000 

• Implemented a cooperative conservation program to enhance cooperative state/Federal 

management efforts in the recovery of right whales – This program comprises 

approximately $2 million annually. 

• Expanded the gear research program by developing and implementing a new Challenge 

Grant Program – This is a new pilot program to solicit from students and subsequently 

159 
 

 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

develop innovative gear designs that reduce serious injury and mortality to whales that 

become entangled in fishing gear. 

Critical Habitat 

• Drafted the 90-day finding and 12-month final determination on the petition to revise 

critical habitat (both Atlantic and Pacific) 

The following conservation actions were undertaken during 2002–2004 for the North Pacific 

right whale: 

• Continued surveys of the Bering Sea to expand the understanding of right whale 

occurrence and distribution 

• Used autonomous underwater recording devices to detect right whale calls, which 

provide further information on a continual basis 

• Successfully deployed (in 2004) a satellite-monitored radio tag, which provided 

additional information on the movements of a North Pacific right whale; this tagging 

program will be expanded in summer 2005 

• Drafted the 90-day finding and 12-month final determination on the petition to revise 

critical habitat (both Atlantic and Pacific) 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

For right whales in the western North Atlantic, NMFS will continue its efforts to address humancaused mortality and serious injury of right whales associated with gear and vessel interactions. 

Additional work is required to complete the development and implementation of the right whale 

Ship Strike Strategy. Although substantial work has already been conducted concerning gear 

modifications to address entanglement risks associated with the groundline of pot/trap gear, 

additional work is needed to better understand the entanglement risk regarding the endlines 

(buoy lines) of fixed gear, and right whale behavior once whales become entangled. 

For right whales in the North Pacific, the most urgent recovery need is better information on the 

basic distribution and occurrence of right whales in the eastern North Pacific, including 

identification of their wintering areas, which remain unknown. Surveys need to be continued, as 

well as the use of autonomous underwater recording devices and satellite-monitored radio tags. 

Additional specific recovery actions for this population will be specified upon completion of the 

recovery plan. 

Recovery Priority Number: 1 

The species recovery priority is based on three criteria. The first criterion is the magnitude of 

threat, which is clearly high due to extremely low population numbers and continuing threats to 

recovery. The second criterion is recovery potential; because the two main sources of right 

whale mortalities and serious injury (fishing gear and vessel interactions) are human-induced, the 

potential to address these issues is categorized as high. The third criterion is conflict; because 

any regulatory action taken would likely involve restrictions on commercial fishing and 

shipping, the economic impacts would potentially create a significant conflict. After tallying the 

scores for each criterion, right whales would receive a priority number of one. 

160 
 

 

 

 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

Sei Whale (Balaenoptera borealis) 

Date Listed: June 2, 1970 

Legal Status: Endangered 

Recovery Plan Status: 

No recovery plan currently exists for the sei whale. A draft joint recovery plan was generated in 

1998 for the sei and fin whales; this plan is currently being updated. 

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.1 Current estimates for 

sei whale abundance in the southern oceans range from 9,718 to 12,000 whales.2 In the North 

Pacific, the pre-exploitation population estimate for sei whales is 42,000 whales.3 The most 

current population estimate for sei whales in the entire North Pacific (from 1977) is 9,110 

whales.3 In the entire North Atlantic, information is not available on the pre-exploitation 

population size of sei whales; the most current population estimate (from 1991) is a lowprecision estimate of approximately 4,000 whales. 

The stock identity of sei whales in the North Atlantic poses a major research challenge; however, 

NMFS provisionally recognizes one stock in U.S. waters – the Nova Scotia stock, which is found 

in continental shelf waters of the northeastern U.S. and ranges northeast to waters south of 

Newfoundland. In the North Pacific, there is one stock of sei whales in U.S. waters – the eastern 

North Pacific stock, found east of 180° W longitude. 

Nova Scotia stock (Atlantic) 

No estimates of the pre-whaling population size are available for sei whales in the North Atlantic 

Ocean. A current minimum population size and trend for the Nova Scotia stock of sei whales 

cannot be estimated because there are no abundance estimates within the past 10 years. 

Eastern North Pacific stock 

Pre-whaling abundance of sei whales in the North Pacific is estimated at 42,000 whales, as 

mentioned above. Based on 1996 and 2001 shipboard surveys, the minimum population estimate 

for sei whales in California, Oregon, and Washington waters out to 300 nautical miles is 35 

whales. However, reliable estimates of the current minimum population size of the eastern North 

Pacific stock are not available. There are no data on population trends in sei whale abundance in 

eastern North Pacific waters. 

1

 Includes: International Whaling Commission. 1980. Report of special meeting on Southern Hemisphere sei
 

whales. Rep. Int. Whal. Comm. 30: 493-511. 

2

 Includes: IWC (1980); International Whaling Commission. 1996. Report of the sub-committee on Southern
 

Hemisphere baleen whales, Annex E. Rep. Int. Whal. Comm. 46:117-131.
 3

 Tillman, M.F. 1977. Estimates of population size for the North Pacific sei whale. Rep. Int. Whal. Comm., Spec. 

Iss. 1:98–106. 

161 
 

 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

Threats and Impacts: 

Nova Scotia stock (Atlantic) 

Sei whales in the western North Atlantic are occasionally impacted by ship strikes. NMFS’ 

stranding and entanglement records from 1997 through 2001 yield an average of 0.2 humancaused mortalities of sei whales per year as a result of one confirmed record from May 2, 2001, 

when a sei whale carcass was recovered in New York harbor after it slid off the bow of an 

arriving ship. The only other NMFS record of human-caused sei whale mortality was from 

November 17, 1994, when a sei whale carcass was observed on the bow of a container ship as it 

docked in Boston. 

Eastern North Pacific stock 

Threats and impacts to the eastern North Pacific stock of sei whales are relatively unknown at 

this time. There is a potential for bycatch of sei whales in drift gillnet fisheries off of California 

and Mexico. There is also a potential for sei whales in the North Pacific to be killed or seriously 

injured by ship strikes. 

Conservation Actions: 

Nova Scotia stock (Atlantic) 

There are no specific conservation actions for the Nova Scotia stock of sei whales at this time. 

Eastern North Pacific stock 

Conservation actions for the sei whale in the western North Pacific include the following: 

• Monitoring the status of the California/Oregon/Washington stock of sei whales via 

shipboard surveys, which are conducted every 3 years, with Marine Mammal Protection 

Act (MMPA) funding 

• Placing observers onboard vessels in the California/Oregon swordfish/thresher shark drift 

gillnet fishery to monitor for the take of protected species, including marine mammals 

(MMPA funding) 

• Implementing marine mammal take reduction measures identified in the Pacific Offshore 

Cetacean Take Reduction Plan (including the use of acoustic pingers) to reduce the 

bycatch of marine mammals (MMPA funding) 

Priority Recovery Actions: 

Continue current conservation actions. 

Recovery Priority Number: 3 

This recovery priority number reflects a high degree of threat, low to moderate recovery 

potential, and potential conflict. 

162 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

Sperm Whale (Physeter macrocephalus) 

Date Listed: June 2, 1970 

Legal Status: Endangered 

Recovery Plan Status: 

No recovery plan for the sperm whale has been completed. 

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 the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone 

(EEZ): the North Atlantic stock, the northern Gulf of Mexico stock, the Hawaiian stock, the 

California/Oregon/Washington stock, and the North Pacific stock. 

North Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico stocks 

The geographic distribution of the North Atlantic stock appears to have a distinct seasonal cycle, 

ranging from being concentrated offshore Cape Hatteras (in winter), to being widespread 

throughout the central portion of the mid-Atlantic bight up to Georges Bank (in spring and 

including the continental shelf south of New England in summer), to being concentrated on the 

continental shelf south of New England and along the continental shelf edge into the midAtlantic bight (in fall). The minimum population estimate for the western North Atlantic sperm 

whale stock is 3,505 individuals. There are insufficient data to determine the population trend 

for this stock. 

Sperm whales are present year-round in the Gulf of Mexico. The minimum population estimate 

for this stock of sperm whales is 1,114 individuals. There are insufficient data to determine the 

population trend for this stock. 

North Pacific stocks 

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 between 1800 and the 1980s took at least 

436,000 sperm whales from the entire North Pacific Ocean. 

The Hawaiian Islands marked the center of a major 19th century whaling ground for sperm 

whales, and at present the waters around Hawaii contain one of three sperm whale stocks in the 

U.S. Pacific EEZ. The sounds of sperm whales have been recorded throughout the year off 

Oahu. In addition to the main Hawaiian Islands, sperm whales have also been sighted around 

several of the Northwest Hawaiian Islands. Based on abundance estimates from 1993–1998, the 

current minimum population estimate for this stock is 43 sperm whales. This includes only areas 

within about 25 nautical miles of the main Hawaiian Islands and does not include animals that 

163 
ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

were diving and unable to be seen. No data are available on the current population trend for this 

stock. 

The geographic distribution of the California/Oregon/Washington stock of sperm whales varies 

seasonally. Sperm whales are found year-round in California waters, but peak in abundance 

from April through mid-June and from the end of August to mid-November. Off Washington 

and Oregon, whales from this stock are present in every season except winter. Based on 1996– 

2001 summer/fall ship surveys off California, Oregon, and Washington, the current minimum 

population estimate for this stock is approximately 885 whales. Sperm whale abundance appears 

to have been rather variable off California and does not show any apparent trend at this time. 

Sperm whales in the North Pacific stock are found in Alaskan waters (Gulf of Alaska, Bering 

Sea, and Aleutian Islands) and have a northern boundary extending from Cape Navarin (62o

N) to 

the Pribilof Islands. The number of sperm whales of the North Pacific occurring within Alaskan 

waters is unknown, and at this time it is not possible to produce a reliable estimate of minimum 

abundance for this stock. Reliable information on population trends in abundance for this stock 

is currently unavailable. 

Threats and Impacts: 

• 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 are known to occur and 

may be increasing in frequency. NMFS has observed sperm whales feeding off longline 

gear in the Gulf of Alaska for both the sablefish and halibut fisheries. The total estimated 

mortality and serious injury incurred by this stock as a result of interactions with fisheries 

from 1997–2001 is 0.4 whales per year. 

• Sperm whales in the North Atlantic stock are known to interact with fisheries as well. 

The total annual estimated fishery-related mortality or serious injury from 1996–2000 

was 0.2 sperm whales per year. In 2000, a sperm whale was found stranded off Florida 

with fishing gear in its blowhole, and in 1995 one sperm whale was entangled in a 

pelagic drift gillnet and was released alive with gear around several body parts (the latter 

interaction was not used to estimate mortality). From August 1993 to May 1998, three 

sperm whales in this stock were entangled in various fishing gear, including longline 

gear, fine mesh gillnet, and fishing net with three buoys attached. Bycatch of sperm 

whales has been observed by NMFS in the pelagic drift gillnet fishery, with one sperm 

whale in 1990 and one in 1995. No mortalities or serious injuries of this stock have been 

documented in the pelagic longline, pelagic pair trawl, sink gillnet, coastal gillnet, or 

bottom trawl fisheries. 

• There is a potential for sperm whales to be killed or seriously injured by ship strikes. In 

May 1994, a sperm whale was involved in a ship strike south of Nova Scotia, and in May 

2000 a merchant ship reported a ship strike in Block Canyon, which is a major pathway 

164 
 

 

ESA Recovery Program – Biennial Report to Congress 2002–2004 

for sperm whales entering southern New England continental shelf waters in pursuit of 

migrating squid. 

• A 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. 

• Sperm whales may also be impacted by global sea temperature change and altered prey 

distribution. 

• 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: 

The following conservation actions were undertaken during 2002–2004 for the recovery of the 

sperm whale: 

• Monitoring the status of the California/Oregon/Washington stock of sperm whales via 

shipboard surveys, which are conducted every 3 years, with Marine Mammal Protection 

Act (MMPA) funding 

• Placing observers onboard vessels in the California/Oregon swordfish/thresher shark drift 

gillnet fishery to monitor for the take of protected species, including marine mammals 

(MMPA funding) 

• Implementing marine mammal take reduction measures identified in the Pacific Offshore 

Cetacean Take Reduction Plan (including the use of acoustic pingers) to reduce the 

bycatch of marine mammals (MMPA funding) 

Priority Recovery Actions Needed: 

Continue current conservation actions. 

Recovery Priority Number: 7 

This recovery priority number reflects a moderate magnitude of threat, low to moderate recovery 

potential, and the presence of conflict. 

165 
APPENDIX A. Pacific Salmon Supplemental Information 

 A - 1
 
Table A-1. Summary of Status and Trends for 27 ESUs of Pacific Salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) on the West Co

Qualitative trends in abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity of each ESU since time of listing, or since the time of first review, are described for each ES

viability of salmon and steelhead ESUs based on these four criteria1. Please note the list of caveats in the footnotes below (4-6). 

Summary Information 

Qualitative Trends in Viability Criteria: current status vs. at time of listing or first 

Species ESU Current ESA Listing Status Abundance Productivity Spatial Struct

Sockeye Salmon Snake River Endangered 1 Improved Improved Unchanged 

Ozette Lake Threatened 3 Uncertain Uncertain Unchanged 

Chinook Salmon Snake River Spring/Summer-run Threatened 2 Improved Improved Unchanged 

Snake River Fall-run Threatened 2 Improved Improved Unchanged 

Puget Sound Threatened 3 Unchanged Unchanged Unchanged 

Lower Columbia River Threatened 3 Unchanged Unchanged Unchanged Upper Willamette River Threatened 3 Unchanged Unchanged Unchanged 

Upper Columbia River Spring-run Endangered 3 Improved Improved Unchanged 

Sacramento River Winter-run Endangered 2 Improved Improved Unchanged 

Central Valley Spring-run Threatened 3 Improved Improved Unchanged 

California Coastal Threatened 3 Unchanged Unchanged Unchanged 

 A -

2
Table A-1 (continued). Summary of Status and Trends for 27 ESUs of Pacific Salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) on 

Summary Information 

Qualitative Trends in Viability Critercurrent status vs. at time of listing or 

Species ESU Current ESA Listing Status Abundance Productivity Spatial 

Coho Salmon Southern Oregon/Northern California Threatened 2 Unchanged Unchanged Unc

Oregon Coast Proposed 3 Improved Improved Unc

Lower Columbia River Proposed Decreasing Decreasing Dec

Central California Coast Threatened 2 Decreasing Uncertain Dec

Chum Salmon Hood Canal Summer-run Threatened 3 Improved Improved Unc

Columbia River Threatened 3 Improved Improved Unc

Steelhead Upper Columbia River Endangered 3 Improved Improved Unc

Snake River Basin Threatened 3 Unchanged Unchanged Unc

Lower Columbia River Threatened 3 Improved Improved Unc

Upper Willamette River Threatened 3 Improved Improved UncMiddle Columbia River Threatened 3 Improved Improved UncNorthern California Threatened 3 Decreasing Unchanged Unc

Central California Coast Threatened 3 Decreasing Unchanged Dec

South-Central Coast Threatened 3 Uncertain Uncertain Unc

Southern California Endangered 3 Uncertain Uncertain Unc

California Central Valley Threatened 3 Uncertain Uncertain Unc

 A -

3
Table A-1 (continued). Summary of Status and Trends for 27 ESUs of Pacific Salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) on 

1 McElhany, Ruckelshaus, Ford, Wainright, and Bjorkstedt. 2000. Viable Salmonid Populations and the Recovery of Evolutionarily Significant 

Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-42. 

2 Critical habitat designations are in place.3 Critical habitat designations were recently proposed (December 14, 2004; 69 FR 74572). 

Caveats associated with the status information presented above and in Figures A2(A)-A2(D) include:

4 The ESA listing status of these eighteen ESUs is currently under review, and scheduled to be finalized by June 2005. 5 The sources for historical abundance estimates vary considerably among the ESUs. Historical abundance estimates may be derived from past s

anecdotal accounts, estimates of habitat carrying capacity, best professional judgment, etc. Additionally, the timeframe referenced by historica

ranging from 30 to over 100 years ago. 

6 The ESU abundance estimates depicted in the figures and table were derived from information presented in the Updated Status of Federally Li

and Steelhead (West Coast Biological Review Team. Draft Report. July 2003). These estimates represent the average abundance of population

available. The sources of the abundance data vary considerably among and within ESUs, spanning the full spectrum of estimation methods (e

salmon at dams, spawner estimates from redd surveys, etc.). The ESU abundance estimates presented, therefore, are intended to provide only steelhead abundance and trends in these ESUs. The actual values of the estimates should be regarded with healthy skepticism.

 A -

4
Figure A-1. Distribution of Pacific Salmon ESUs 
APPENDIX B. NMFS Recovery Priority Number Guidelines 

 B - 1
 
, . 2$1296 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. lit3 / &day. June 15, 1990 / Notices 

I 

National Oceanlc and At oepheric 

Adminlstration t 

[Docket No. 71015-00871 

AQEMCX National Marine isheries 

Service (NOAAFisheries) NOAk a 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice. I 


enGrely outside ~.b juris are not 

likely to benefit from 

Bgreernents under section of the Act 

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 

ecconomic activity. Section 4(h) of the 

A.ct requires that NOAA Fisheries 

establish a system for developing and 

implementing recovery plans on a 

priority basis. 

The assignment of priorities to listing, 

rt!classification, dellsting, and recovery 

aictions will allow NOMFisheries to 

uae the limited resources available to 

kndement the Act in the most effective 

wiY.On May 30,1W, NOAA Fisheries 

published proposed guidelines in the 

Federal Register (SQFR 22025) and 

rc!quested comments. No comments 

were received from the public. NOAA 

Fisheries issues these final guidelines 

with only slight modifications Erom the 

proposal based on internal reviews. 

These guidelines are based primarily 

on guidelines published by the U.S.Fish 

and Wildlife Senrice (FWS)on 

September 21,lW I48FR 43098).NOAA 

Fisheries believes that, to the extent 

practical, both agencies should follow 

similar priority guidelinds for listing, 

nxdassification, delist@ and recovery. 

To the extent possible, NOAA Fisheries 

has adopted the priority guidelines in 

use by FWS. However, due to the 

slnaller nymber oflisted upedes and the 

anticipated smaller num'ber of candidate 

species under NOAA Fisheries 

ju~risdiction,NOAA Fisheries believes - that fewer priority categories are 

niecessary and the FWSguidelines have 

bleen modified accordingly. 

These priority systems are ghidelinea 

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 

of 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 

I, Listing and Rec~assi~cation hm 

Threatenedto 

In considerinn soecies to be listed or 

reclassified fro& ihreatened 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 of economic 
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 

a species facing a high magnitude of 

threat (species recovery priority 14). 

When the task priorities (Table 4) are 

combined with the species recovery 

priority (Table 3). the most ci-itical 

activities lor each listed species can be 

idenaled and evaluated against other 

species recovery actions. This system 

recognizes the need to work toward the 

recovery of all listed species. not simply 

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 

-

resources. 

,, 

ag 

fie 

Assist~nt Admjn 

NaiionalOceonl 

Adminis'm'ion. 

iFRDoc. 90-l~~ 

~UNO-aS10-*Y