Report Card on Recovery: Reviews Assess 28 Salmon and Steelhead Species Returning to West Coast Rivers

2022 Endangered Species Act 5-Year Reviews

West Coast

Coho salmon swiming underwater — Coho or Silver Salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch Rogue River Oregon. Credit: Mark Conlin/Alamy

Extreme drought. Wildfires. Climate Change. The last 5 years have been tough for salmon and steelhead which spawn and rear in rivers across the West Coast. How are these species doing, given these challenges?

Under the Endangered Species Act, NOAA Fisheries periodically reviews the status of each of 28 West Coast salmon and steelhead species listed as threatened or endangered. Each review answers questions such as:

How is the species doing compared to 5 years ago?
Is its status better or worse, and why?
Should its ESA listing status change?
Finally, what actions are critical in the next five years to prevent extinction of the species and improve its chances of survival and recovery?

This page explains how we complete these reviews and describes trends across species. Detailed information for each species will be available to the public as these “5-year reviews” are completed in the coming months.

Climate change is increasingly affecting many species, which are vulnerable in different ways. The next several years may be a crucial window, when we can take actions that improve the odds for the species while we still have time.

Many salmon and steelhead have struggled in the last five years. Some have declined. Many of us live in salmon habitat, enjoying the same shorelines and valleys where young salmon gain size and strength to survive their years in the ocean. It is up to us to provide a place for them.

Biologists wading along the edge of a river using survey equipment — A team of biologists surveys young spring Chinook salmon in the mountains of Idaho, gathering data to inform their protection and recovery.

Viability of Salmon and Steelhead

Each review starts with an assessment of the biological viability of the species to determine whether their resilience and capacity to survive in the wild has changed, and, if so, how. These viability assessments were completed by NOAA Fisheries’ two West Coast laboratories, the Northwest Fisheries Science Center and Southwest Fisheries Science Center.

An increasing viability trend indicates the species faces a reduced risk of extinction. The reviews weigh extinction risk and viability trends for each species. Their viability trend is based on four criteria:

Abundance: How many are there?
Productivity: How quickly can they multiply?
Spatial Structure: How are they distributed across the landscape?
Diversity: Are they genetically resilient?

ESA Listing Factors

The viability assessment provides the biological foundation for each status review. The reviews next assess changes in the five listing factors that led us to determine each species should be listed under the ESA in the first place. Biologists leading the reviews considered the viability assessments, other research results, and the results of successful conservation actions, as well as other information solicited from tribes, states, conservation groups and the public when the reviews began. They weighed this information in the context of the five listing factors below to determine whether the risks to the species have changed enough to warrant a change in status:

present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;
over-utilization of the species for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
disease or predation;
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and
other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.

Review Findings Reflect Resilience

Finally, the 5-year reviews pull together the findings of the viability assessments and the statutory test of the five listing factors to determine whether a change in ESA-listing status is recommended. Just because the listing doesn’t change, however, does not mean that things have not changed for the species. Rather, it signals that there has not been enough change to alter the threatened or endangered status of the species according to the factors the ESA tells us to consider.

When these species were listed, we developed recovery plans that outline the path to helping them rebound so they would no longer need ESA protection. We know that the plans will take many years to achieve, however. The 5-year reviews tell us whether recovery is on track, or if we need to make adjustments to reach our goals. These reviews also explain what the most significant accomplishments have been over the previous five years, and the greatest immediate challenges for the species looking ahead.

MIgrating salmon jumping upstream — Migrating Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) jump up Lake Creek Falls on a tributary of the Siuslaw River in western Oregon. Credit: Paul Jeffrey/Alamy

Where We Go From Here

Together we must secure space for these species in our future landscape. The challenges facing salmon have never been greater, but there has never before been such popular understanding and support for these fish that are so identified with the West Coast. That is why some of the most valuable findings in each 5-year review are an assessment of what has worked (and what hasn’t) and the highest priority recovery actions to take in the next five years.

The true value of the 5-year reviews is what we make of them for the fish. With recovery plans and other efforts by partners and everyone who cares about Pacific salmon and steelhead, these reviews help provide a course that will improve the viability and climate resilience of the species. Now it is up to all of us.