ȱ
ȱȱȱȱǱȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ ǯȱȱ
ȱȱȱȱ¢ȱ
¢ȱŚǰȱŘŖŖşȱ
ȱȱȱ
ŝȬśŝŖŖȱ
ǯǯȱ
şŞȬŜŜŜȱ
ȱȱȱ
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress

ȱȱȱȱǱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
¢ȱ
Along the Pacific Coast, 28 distinct population segments of Pacific salmon and steelhead trout are
listed as either endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Human
activities have combined to greatly degrade, reduce, and eliminate fish habitat and otherwise
harm populations of anadromous (sea-run) fish. In addition, natural phenomena stress fish
populations and contribute to their variable abundance. Current management efforts aim to
restore the abundance of ESA-listed native northeast Pacific salmonids to historic, sustainable
population levels. This report summarizes the reasons for ESA listings and outlines efforts to
protect ESA-listed species. This report will be updated periodically to reflect the changing
situation.
ȱȱȱ

ȱȱȱȱǱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
ȱ
Background ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Human Activities Stressing Fish ..................................................................................................... 2
Protection and Restoration Efforts .................................................................................................. 3

ȱ
Table 1. Status of Five Species of Pacific Coast Salmonids............................................................ 6

ȱ
Author Contact Information ............................................................................................................ 8

ȱȱȱ

ȱȱȱȱǱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
ȱ
Pacific Chinook, coho, chum, sockeye, and pink salmon as well as steelhead trout are
anadromous (i.e., they live as juveniles in fresh water, migrate to the ocean to develop, and, when
sexually mature, return to freshwater to spawn). While steelhead trout and Atlantic salmon can
return to the sea after spawning (and may spawn again in subsequent years), Pacific salmon die
after spawning once. Juvenile salmon typically reside in fresh water from a few days (pink
salmon) to three years (some sockeye salmon) before migrating to the ocean, where they typically
spend one to six years before migrating to their natal stream, as much as 900 miles or more
inland. Natural phenomena—predators, droughts, floods, and fluctuating oceanic conditions—
stress salmonids and contribute to the variable abundance of their populations. El Niño, Pacific
decadal oscillation,1 and global climate change2 have been of particular concern as factors
altering salmon habitat and affecting salmon distribution and abundance.
Precipitous salmon declines in the 1990s hurt the economies of fishing-dependent communities
throughout the Northwest and northern California. By the late 1990s, west coast salmon
abundance had declined to only a small fraction of what it had been in the mid-1800s, with much
of the current population supported by artificial hatchery production.3 As recently as 1988, sport
and commercial salmon fishing in that region generated more than $1.25 billion for the regional
economy. Since then, salmon fishing closures have contributed to the loss of nearly 80% of this
region’s job base, with a total salmon industry loss over the past 30 years of approximately
72,000 family wage jobs.4
Currently, 28 distinct population segments of five salmonid species have been listed as either
endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA, see Table 1), with three
additional populations identified as “species of concern.”5 While no species of anadromous trout
or salmon is in danger of near-term extinction, individual population segments (designated as
“evolutionarily significant units” or ESUs)6 within these species have declined substantially or
have even been extirpated. The American Fisheries Society considers at least 214 Pacific Coast
anadromous fish populations to be “at risk,” while at least 106 other historically abundant
populations have already become extinct.7

1 N. J. Mantua et al., “A Pacific interdecadal climate oscillation with impacts on salmon production,” Bulletin of the
American Meteorological Society, v. 78 (1997): 1069-1079.
2 See http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/nationalassessment/10NW.pdf.
3 See, for example, National Marine Fisheries Service, Factors Contributing to the Decline of Chinook Salmon: An
Addendum to the 1996 West Coast Steelhead Factors For Decline Report, (Portland, OR: June 1998), 71 p.
4 Pacific Rivers Council. The Economic Imperative of Protecting Riverine Habitat in the Pacific Northwest. Eugene,
OR: January 1992; and “Statement of Glen Spain of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations” in: U.S.
Senate, Committee on Environment and Public Works, Subcommittee on Drinking Water, Fisheries, and Wildlife.
Endangered Species Act Reauthorization. Hearing, June 1, 1995. Roseburg, OR: U.S. Govt. Print. Off. pp. 123-142.
5 “Species of concern” are those about which the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has concerns regarding
status and threats, but insufficient information is available to indicate a need to list the species under the ESA.
6 NMFS uses the term “ESU” as synonymous to a distinct population segment that appears to be reproductively isolated
from other segments (56 Fed. Reg. 58612, Nov. 20, 1991).
7 Willa Nehlsen, Jack Williams, and James Lichatowich, “Pacific Salmon at the Crossroads: Stocks at Risk from
California, Oregon, Idaho, and Washington,” Fisheries, v. 16 (1991), pp. 4-21; and T. L. Slaney et al. “Status of
Anadromous Salmon and Trout in British Columbia and Yukon,” Fisheries, v. 21 (October 1996), pp. 20-35.
ȱȱȱ
ŗȱ

ȱȱȱȱǱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
ȱȱȱȱ
Anadromous salmonids inhabit clean, silt-free streams of low water temperature (below 68° F)
and quality estuarine nursery habitat. Human activities—logging, grazing, mining, agriculture,
urban development, and consumptive water use—can degrade aquatic habitat. Silt can cover
streambed gravel, smothering eggs. Poorly constructed roads often increase siltation in streams
where adult salmon spawn and young salmon rear. Removal of streamside trees and shade
frequently leads to higher water temperatures. Grazing cattle remove streamside vegetation and
exacerbate streambank erosion. Urbanization typically brings stream channelization and filled
wetlands, altering food supplies and nursery habitat. Habitat alterations can lead to increased
salmonid predation by marine mammals, birds, and other fish. Water diversions for agriculture
exacerbate these problems. According to state water resource agencies, almost every water basin
in Oregon, eastern Washington, and northern California is now over-appropriated (i.e., there are
more legal permits for diversion than available water) during the hottest and driest months of the
year.
Dams for hydropower, flood control, and irrigation substantially alter aquatic habitat and can
have significant impacts on anadromous fish. The 31 dams (i.e., hydro projects) in the Federal
Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) produce about 40% of the power in the Pacific
Northwest, and the reservoirs behind these dams create a major navigable waterway as far inland
as Lewiston, Idaho. While the design of some dams is described as “fish-friendly” (e.g., Wells
Dam on the Columbia River in Washington), poorly designed dams can physically bar or impede
anadromous fish migrations to and from the sea, kill juveniles as they pass through a dam’s
turbines, and expose fish to potentially harmful gas supersaturation.8 If delayed by dams during
migration, both young and old salmon can be exposed to increased predation, to an increased risk
of bacterial infections, and to higher temperatures which cause stress and sometimes death.9
Decreased river flow can also harm juveniles by delaying their downstream migration. Changing
FCRPS operations to benefit salmon is controversial, in part because costs of dam and power
generation changes are passed along to power customers through increased rates.
The goal of fish hatcheries, operated along the Pacific Coast since 1877, has been the
augmentation of natural salmonid populations and the production of fish to replace those lost
where dams completely blocked passage and destroyed native salmonid populations. Today, at
least 80% of the salmon caught commercially in the Pacific Northwest and northern California
each year come from hatcheries. In the 1970s, however, scientists discovered that some hatchery
practices reduced genetic diversity in fish populations.10 The mixing of populations by hatcheries
and transplantation has generally resulted in decreased genetic fitness of wild populations and the
loss of some stream-specific adaptations. Also, hatchery fish generally have lower survival rates
than wild fish, and are less able to adjust to changing ocean conditions or to escape predators.

8 Water spilled from dams and passing through turbines can become supersaturated with gaseous nitrogen. Juvenile fish
exposed to supersaturated conditions can develop disorienting gas bubble disease and become more susceptible to
predation.
9 G. F. Cada et al., “Effects of Water Velocity on the Survival of Downstream-Migrating Juvenile Salmon and
Steelhead: A Review with Emphasis on the Columbia River Basin,” Reviews in Fisheries Science, v. 5, no. 2 (1997):
131-183.
10 Jack Stern, Jr., “Supplementation of Wild Salmon Stocks: A Cure for the Hatchery Problem or More Problem
Hatcheries?” Coastal Management, v. 23 (1995), pp. 123, 140.
ȱȱȱ
Řȱ

ȱȱȱȱǱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
The harvest of intermingled fish populations from different watersheds presents several problems,
including how to protect ESA-listed populations while promoting the harvest of abundant native
and hatchery fish. Since hatcheries are often more productive than natural fish populations,
managing fisheries to avoid surplus returns to hatcheries can result in overharvested natural
populations. Controversy arises when managers must consider how much the harvest of abundant
populations must be curtailed to protect less-abundant ESA-listed populations. Such policies can
frustrate both commercial fishermen and sport anglers. ESA-listed or seriously depressed
populations thus can become the limiting factor on fisheries, resulting in tens of millions of
dollars in foregone fishing opportunities to avoid further depressing the weakest populations.
ȱȱȱȱ
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS, also popularly referred to as “NOAA Fisheries”)
in the Department of Commerce implements the ESA for anadromous salmonids. NMFS receives
a petition from an individual, group, or state agency, or initiates internally the process to
determine whether a species or population merits listing as “endangered” or “threatened.” Based
on facts presented, the Secretary of Commerce decides whether the petition provides substantial
information indicating that listing may be warranted. If the Secretary decides affirmatively, a 90-
day notice announcing the initiation of a status review is published in the Federal Register. Once
the status review is completed, NMFS publishes a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register and seeks public comment for those species or populations NMFS believes should be
listed. A final listing decision must occur within 12 months after notice publication. Once listed,
NMFS is required to designate critical habitat11 as well as develop and publish a recovery plan for
the listed entity.12 The goal of ESA listing is species recovery, defined as removal from the ESA
list.13
When a federal activity may harm an ESA-listed salmonid, the ESA requires the federal agency to
consult with NMFS to determine whether the activity is likely to jeopardize the survival and
recovery of the species or adversely modify its critical habitat. In response to a federal agency’s
biological assessment, NMFS issues a “biological opinion” (BiOp) with an incidental “take”
statement which can authorize a limited take (i.e., harm) of the species and specify reasonable and
prudent measures that might minimize harm. If NMFS issues a jeopardy opinion, it includes
reasonable and prudent alternative (RPA) actions which could be taken to avoid jeopardizing the
species. NMFS issues numerous BiOps related to salmon each year. For example, a 1995 BiOp
for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Bonneville Power Administration sought to
develop a biologically sound strategy to deal with salmon passage in the Columbia and Snake
Rivers. The major impact of this BiOp and its 1998 supplement has been the move away from
transporting the majority of juvenile salmonids downstream by truck or barge. Instead, the
adopted “spread the risk” policy supplements barge transport and reduces fish mortality by
increasing the spill of water and fish over dams to circumvent turbines. In 2000, the Corps
completed a System Operations Review of the Columbia and Snake River hydropower system,
with breaching the four lower Snake River dams considered as one among many options. As a
result, in December 2000, NMFS issued a revised BiOp that reviewed the strategies outlined in

11 In practice, less than 40% of listed species have designated critical habitat.
12 For information on current recovery efforts, see http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/trt/index.cfm.
13 For background on the ESA process, see CRS Report RL31654, The Endangered Species Act: A Primer, by M.
Lynne Corn, Eugene H. Buck, and Kristina Alexander.
ȱȱȱ
řȱ

ȱȱȱȱǱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
the 1995 and 1998 BiOps and recommended changes. This BiOp did not recommend breaching
Snake River dams, but did include steps to consider breach should the RPA fail. A revised 2004
“no jeopardy” BiOp did not include breaching and was remanded to NOAA by the Federal
District Court of Oregon (although not due to dam breaching issues).14 NOAA released revised
BiOps on May 5, 2008.15 The final revised BiOps are being reviewed by the court as to their
adequacy. 16
Prior to the listing of salmonid ESUs under the ESA, the majority of conservation and habitat
management efforts were conducted by individual states, tribes, and private industries. In the
Columbia River Basin, the Northwest Power and Conservation Council took the lead under the
1980 Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act (P.L. 96-501), by
attempting to protect salmon and their habitat while also providing inexpensive electric power to
the region. Although federal agencies and public utilities have spent hundreds of millions of
dollars on technical improvements for dams, habitat enhancement, and water purchases to
improve salmon survival, some populations have continued to decline. Recent years have seen an
increased interest by state governments and tribal councils in developing comprehensive salmon
management efforts. States generally seek to forestall ESA listings, or, if listings do occur, to
reduce federal involvement affecting state-managed lands. With limited staff and funding to
implement a wide range of programs, NMFS has encouraged integrated management efforts (i.e.,
habitat conservation plans) among federal, state, and tribal agencies as a tool to save listed
species and avoid future listing of additional ESUs through comprehensive recovery efforts.
NMFS viewed the Oregon Coastal Salmon Restoration Initiative (OCSRI), to promote
comprehensive and proactive state-based recovery efforts and avoid listing coho salmon in
Oregon, as precedent for federal/state/local partnerships. However, a federal court decision
clarified that, to avoid an eventual listing, plans cannot be based primarily on speculative or
proposed future measures, but must instead be based on recovery measures that are enforceable or
reasonably likely to occur; for instance, measures embodied in laws, regulations, or long-range
and stable funding mechanisms.17 With the listing of many salmonid ESUs in the Columbia River
basin, new options for governance are being explored by federal, state, and tribal parties.
Restoration efforts for some California salmon, including water reforms, were embodied in the
Central Valley Project Improvement Act (Title XXXIV of P.L. 102-575) and the San Joaquin
River Restoration Program.18 Under this authority, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has
coordinated plans for fish screens, fish ladders, and water pollution reduction to recover native
fish populations in the Central Valley Project area.
In 1993, NMFS issued an interim policy on artificial propagation of Pacific salmon under the
ESA to guide how hatcheries should be used to help recover salmonids.19 In response to litigation
over the role of hatcheries in salmon recovery, a policy statement defined how hatchery fish are to

14 See http://seahorse.nmfs.noaa.gov/pls/pcts-pub/sxn7.pcts_upload.summary_list_biop?p_id=14756.
15 See http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Hydropower/Columbia-Snake-Basin/Final-BOs.cfm.
16 For additional background on Columbia River salmon issues and associated litigation, see CRS Report R40169,
Endangered Species Act Issues Regarding Columbia Basin Salmon and Steelhead, by Kristina Alexander and Eugene
H. Buck.
17 Oregon Natural Resources Council v. Daley, CV-97-1155-ST (D.Or. June 1, 1998).
18 For background information, see http://www.usbr.gov/mp/SJRRP/index.html and CRS Report RL34237, San
Joaquin River Restoration Settlement, coordinated by Betsy A. Cody and Pervaze A. Sheikh.
19 58 Federal Register 17573 (April 5, 1993).
ȱȱȱ
Śȱ

ȱȱȱȱǱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
be treated when deciding whether ESUs should be listed under the ESA.20 In general, the policy is
to recover wild populations in their natural habitat wherever possible, without resorting to
artificial propagation. Washington, Oregon, and British Columbia mass-mark hatchery coho
salmon by fin clipping so that marked fish can be readily identified by fishermen as hatchery fish
and selectively harvested, while unmarked, native fish can be released to spawn. Similar
programs are underway for other species, such as Chinook salmon and steelhead trout. In early
2006, an independent scientific panel began a collaborative review to identify (1) hatchery
programs that are not contributing to salmon recovery and (2) ways to reduce the harvest of ESA-
listed fish.21 An FWS review of Columbia River hatcheries for their contribution to salmon
recovery, begun in May 2005, is scheduled for completion in late 2009.22

20 70 Federal Register 37204 (June 28, 2005).
21 Background information is available at http://www.hatcheryreform.us.
22 See http://www.fws.gov/pacific/Fisheries/Hatcheryreview/index.html.
ȱȱȱ
śȱ

ȱ
Table 1. Status of Five Species of Pacific Coast Salmonids
Species
Population (ESU)
Status
Federal Register (FR) Citation
Pending Actions
Coho salmon
1. Central California Coast
Endangered
70 FR 37160 (June 28, 2005)

(Oncorhynchus kisutch)
2. Southern Oregon/Northern California Threatened
70 FR 37160 (June 28, 2005)

3. Lower Columbia River
Threatened
70 FR 37160 (June 28, 2005)
Critical habitat under review by NMFS
4. Oregon Coast
Threatened
73 FR 7816 (Feb. 11, 2008)

5. Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia
Species of Concern 69 FR 19975 (Apr. 15, 2004)

Chinook salmon
1. Sacramento River winter-run
Endangered
70 FR 37160 (June 28, 2005)

(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) 2. Upper Columbia River spring-run
Endangered
70 FR 37160 (June 28, 2005)

3. Snake River fall-run
Threatened
70 FR 37160 (June 28, 2005)

4. Snake River spring/summer-run
Threatened
70 FR 37160 (June 28, 2005)

5. Central Valley spring-run
Threatened
70 FR 37160 (June 28, 2005)

6. California coastal
Threatened
70 FR 37160 (June 28, 2005)

7. Puget Sound
Threatened
70 FR 37160 (June 28, 2005)

8. Lower Columbia River
Threatened
70 FR 37160 (June 28, 2005)

9. Upper Willamette River
Threatened
70 FR 37160 (June 28, 2005)

10. Central Valley fall and late fall-run
Species of Concern 69 FR 19975 (Apr. 15, 2004)

Chum salmon
1. Hood Canal summer-run
Threatened
70 FR 37160 (June 28, 2005)

(Oncorhynchus keta)
2. Columbia River
Threatened
70 FR 37160 (June 28, 2005)

Sockeye salmon
1. Snake River
Endangered
70 FR 37160 (June 28, 2005)

(Oncorhynchus nerka)
2. Ozette Lake
Threatened
70 FR 37160 (June 28, 2005)

Steelhead trout
1. Southern California
Endangered
71 FR 834 (Jan. 5, 2006)

(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
2. Upper Columbia River
Endangered
Court decision (June 13, 2007)0

3. Central California Coast
Threatened
71 FR 834 (Jan. 5, 2006)

4. South Central California Coast
Threatened
71 FR 834 (Jan. 5, 2006)

5. Snake River Basin
Threatened
71 FR 834 (Jan. 5, 2006)

6. Lower Columbia River
Threatened
71 FR 834 (Jan. 5, 2006)

ȬŜȱ

ȱ
Species
Population (ESU)
Status
Federal Register (FR) Citation
Pending Actions
7. California Central Valley
Threatened
71 FR 834 (Jan. 5, 2006)

8. Upper Willamette River
Threatened
71 FR 834 (Jan. 5, 2006)

9. Middle Columbia River
Threatened
71 FR 834 (Jan. 5, 2006)

10. Northern California
Threatened
71 FR 834 (Jan. 5, 2006)

11. Puget Sound
Threatened
72 FR 26722 (May 11, 2007)
Critical habitat under review by NMFS
12. Oregon Coast
Species of Concern 69 FR 19975 (Apr. 15, 2004)

Source: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NMFS, “Snapshot of ESU Status” (http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/ESA-Salmon-Listings/upload/snapshot-9-08.pdf).
a. Trout Unlimited v. Lohn, No. CV05-1128-JCC (W.D. Wash. June 13, 2007).
Ȭŝȱ

ȱȱȱȱǱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ

ȱȱȱ

Eugene H. Buck

Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
gbuck@crs.loc.gov, 7-7262

ȱȱȱ
Şȱ