Dramatic global decrease in the range and reproduction rate of the European hamster
| |
: Sturgeon and paddlefish research focuses on low risk species and largely disregards endangered species | | |
Is there room for all of us? Renewable energy and | | |
Seabird bycatch in the Argentinean demersal longline fishery, 2001−2010 | | |
Movements of gray whales between the western and eastern North Pacific | | |
Spitsbergen’s endangered bowhead whales sing through the polar night | | |
To make recovery efforts for listed and candidate species more efficient and effective, we work with others to find ways to invigorate and modernize the implementation of the ESA, using our current conservation tools and developing new ones at every opportunity. Among the tools that play a major part in achieving our conservation and recovery goals are: interagency consultations; incentives for landowners and managers to engage in voluntary conservation partnerships; grants to states and territories, private landowners, and conservation groups to fund conservation projects; and permits that authorize scientific research to learn more about listed species, or activities that enhance the propagation or survival of listed species .
Our work to conserve and recover endangered and threatened species includes listing species under the ESA and designating critical habitat, developing protective regulations for threatened species, developing and implementing recovery plans for listed species, monitoring and evaluating the status of listed species, and, cooperating with non-federal partners to develop conservation plans.
Throughout its history, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) has proven to be incredibly effective in stabilizing populations of species at risk, preventing the extinction of many others, and conserving the habitats upon which they depend. All Americans can take pride in the fact that, under the protection of the ESA, the California condor, grizzly bear, Okaloosa darter, whooping crane, and black-footed ferret have all been brought back from the brink of extinction. We can also celebrate that many other species no longer need ESA protection and have been removed from the list of endangered and threatened species, including the bald eagle—the very symbol of our nation's strength.
Whether you are looking for a specific document pertaining to species listing, sections of the Endangered Species Act, or anything else related to Endangered Species policy, you can find it right here in the ESA document library.
The number of endangered and threatened species changes as we add or remove species from the list.
See how many are currently listed
Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.
Scientific Reports volume 8 , Article number: 9789 ( 2018 ) Cite this article
24k Accesses
19 Citations
84 Altmetric
Metrics details
The challenge of recovering threatened species necessitates collaboration among diverse conservation partners. Zoos and aquariums have long partnered with other conservation organizations and government agencies to help recover species through a range of in situ and ex situ conservation projects. These efforts tend to be conducted by individual facilities and for individual species, and thus the scope and magnitude of these actions at the national level are not well understood. Here we evaluate the means and extent to which North American zoos and aquariums contribute to the recovery of species listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA), by synthesizing data from federal recovery plans for listed species and from annual surveys conducted by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums. We found that in addition to managing ex situ assurance populations, zoos frequently conduct conservation research and field-based population monitoring and assessments. Cooperatively managed populations in zoos tend to focus on species that are not listed on the ESA or on foreign listings, and thus it may be beneficial for zoos to manage more native threatened species. Our results highlight the existing contributions, but also identify additional opportunities for the zoo community to help recover threatened species.
Introduction.
Due to the magnitude and complexity of the global extinction crisis, successful species conservation will require the engagement of all potential partners: state and federal agencies, non-governmental organizations, local communities and resource users, industry stakeholders, and wildlife managers 1 . These diverse partners each bring unique perspectives, expertise, and resources, not all of which will be appropriate or necessary in every case. However, a clear understanding of the potential contributions of each partner will help to identify the most relevant entities to call upon in each case.
Zoos and aquariums (hereafter, “zoos”) are becoming more broadly recognized as important partners for conserving threatened species 2 , 3 . There is a long history of zoos engaging in species recovery, from the American bison and California condor to the black-footed ferret and Panamanian golden frog 4 . However, the role of zoos in species conservation has often focused on ex situ species management, in particular ex situ breeding 5 , 6 . For example, the Conservation Measures Partnership’s Actions Classification 7 identifies 30 distinct types of conservation actions, but specifies a role for zoos in only two of those ( ex situ conservation, outreach and communications). The conservation value of ex situ breeding has also been somewhat controversial, with views ranging from it being a last resort that diverts resources from in situ efforts 8 , to part of a continuum of management actions for threatened species 9 . Even when ex situ breeding is acknowledged as part of the conservation strategy, the ability of zoos to sustain demographically and genetically viable populations for the long-term has been questioned 10 , 11 . Undoubtedly these issues and concerns must continue to be explored, but zoos also contribute to other conservation efforts beyond ex situ breeding 12 , 13 , 14 .
Several publications have explored generally how zoos contribute to species conservation, discussing both in situ and ex situ actions. Ex situ actions can directly target the species ( e . g ., ex situ population management, rehabilitation, gene banking) 7 , or indirectly support conservation through public outreach, biological and veterinary research, and fundraising for other organizations and projects 3 , 14 , 15 . In situ actions can include engaging and educating communities in the species’ native range, protecting and restoring habitat, supplying animals and/or staff for reintroductions, and field-based monitoring 3 , 15 . Although there are many case studies of these individual actions, the extent to which zoos contribute to conservation through these actions is not well understood. One study has evaluated the impacts of a subset of in situ conservation projects branded by the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums 16 , and another summarized the number of breeding and reintroduction projects for threatened species conducted by four Canadian zoos 12 . Thus far, no study has quantified both the in situ and ex situ conservation actions conducted by zoos at a national scale.
In the U.S., all institutions accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) include species conservation as a key part of their missions, in accordance with accreditation standards. To fulfill this part of their missions, zoos carry out an array of in situ and ex situ initiatives 4 , and collaborate with other conservation organizations and government agencies. This includes the agencies [U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries] that implement the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA), which was enacted in 1973 to protect threatened species through both extinction prevention and recovery actions 17 . However, the extent and scope of these zoo conservation efforts have not been systematically evaluated beyond annual reports within the zoo community.
The goal of this study was to evaluate the contribution of zoos to the recovery of threatened species in the U.S. by quantifying and summarizing their conservation activities. Our analysis consisted of three parts: (1) Summarize the management actions for which zoos are the responsible parties, based on data from federal recovery plans for listed species; (2) Summarize the recent conservation activities reported by AZA-accredited facilities in responses to the association’s annual field conservation and research surveys; and (3) Quantify the number of listed species that currently have managed populations in AZA facilities in order to identify additional opportunities for species conservation. Using multiple datasets allowed us to compare the contributions as self-reported by AZA facilities against those as recognized by the agencies responsible for implementing the ESA. Due to the scope of our study, we did not aim to quantify the impacts of these conservation activities, although it would be a valuable assessment that could be implemented following the methods of Mace et al . 18 .
In this study we focused on the terrestrial (including invertebrate and amphibian) and avian species listed under the ESA as of February 2017. Therefore, the large number of zoo conservation projects on marine and aquatic species, and the small number on plant species, were outside the scope of this assessment. Zoo conservation projects involving species with other risk statuses ( e . g ., Candidate, Under Review, or Proposed status under the ESA; state-listed; those ranked as Threatened (VU, EN, CR) or Extinct in the Wild (EW) under the IUCN Red List but not listed under the ESA) were also not represented in this assessment. Additionally, we focused on listed species whose native range included the U.S. ( i . e ., U.S. or U.S./foreign listings under the ESA; “U.S. listings” hereafter) in the first two parts of our analysis, but explored the overlap between both U.S. and foreign listings with managed zoo programs in the last section.
The ESA requires every listed species to have a recovery plan, which documents the management actions and the criteria that determine when the species can be delisted. We gathered recovery plan data from the USFWS Recovery Plan Ad Hoc Report database ( http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/ore-input/ad-hoc-recovery-actions-public-report-input ), by querying all recovery actions that list a zoo, aquarium, or AZA (“zoos”) as the responsible party. As of September 2016, the recovery plans for 73 listed species (15.1% of the 482 listings that have recovery plans) named zoos as responsible for at least one recovery action. Of these, we focused on the 54 terrestrial and avian animals (6 amphibians, 31 birds, 7 invertebrates, and 10 mammals) for this analysis. Forty-two of these species are currently listed as Endangered and eight as Threatened, one is not listed due to extinction but was a species of concern at the time of recovery planning ( Moho bishopi ), and three have been delisted since the plan was written due to recovery ( Urocyon littoralis subspecies littoralis , santacruzae , and santarosae ).
In total, there were 38 recovery plans (some plans included more than one species) that described 468 recovery actions for which zoos were the responsible party. These actions involved 39 individual zoos or aquariums, or else listed AZA as the responsible party (see Table S1 for complete list of institutions). We determined 11 keywords to represent the major types of conservation activities attributed to zoos (Table 1 ), which were derived through an iterative process. We started with 52 keywords used by AZA to categorize zoo conservation and science projects (see next section), and condensed them into 9 categories ( e . g ., anti-poaching/patrolling, disaster/emergency response, human-wildlife conflict, and wildlife trade were grouped into “threat mitigation”). We assigned these broader keywords to each recovery action based on the action descriptions from the plans, and added two keywords (fundraising, management/planning) to describe recovery actions that did not fit into existing keywords. In some cases multiple keywords were assigned to an action, resulting in a total of 605 keywords assigned.
The majority of recovery actions related to managing and/or maintaining an assurance population (36.1% of keywords), research (27.4%), and population augmentation (23.5%; Fig. 1A ). Research included a broad range of topics relevant to species recovery, from investigating the impacts of contaminants, to modeling disease dynamics, to evaluating methods for habitat restoration. Besides population augmentation, other in situ recovery actions primarily consisted of population monitoring and assessments (12.4%), but there were also a small number of projects related to mitigating threats (1.7%) and to protecting and restoring habitat (0.9%). An unexpected type of zoo recovery action was management and planning (8.3%), which included projects that either involved or supported decision-making by the recovery team, such as coordinating program components, prioritizing tasks, or evaluating existing strategies. These tasks help to improve efficiency and flexibility and therefore can contribute greatly to the success of a conservation program. Other previously recognized contributions from zoos such as education and outreach 7 , 19 and husbandry knowledge and veterinary care 13 were also represented in recovery plans (7.5% and 7.1%, respectively). Finally, zoos contributed to conservation by providing project funds (4.5%), which were raised not only through visitor fees 8 but also by securing state, federal, and private grants. The keyword related to providing rescue, rehabilitation, or sanctuary facilities did not apply to any zoo-based recovery actions described in these plans. However, they may be more likely to be included in plans for ESA-listed marine species ( e . g ., sea turtles).
Conservation activities carried out by North American zoos and aquariums for species listed under the Endangered Species Act, sorted by type using 11 keywords. The number of instances of each keyword is shown at the base of the bars. ( A ) Distribution of the 468 recovery actions for which zoos and aquariums are the responsible party as described in recovery plans; a total of 606 keywords were assigned. ( B ) Distribution of the 644 field conservation and research project submissions by zoos to the 2013–2015 Annual Report on Conservation and Science (ARCS) survey; a total of 786 keywords were assigned.
Recovery actions were distributed unevenly across taxa (Fig. 2A ), with the majority of actions pertaining to birds (357 out of 468 actions). This was because the Revised Hawaiian Forest Birds Recovery Plan 20 included a very similar set of up to 19 recovery actions for each of 19 different bird species (for a total of 289 recovery actions) that involved either the San Diego Zoological Society or the Honolulu Zoo. To compare recovery action types among taxonomic groups, we further clustered the 11 project keywords into three broader categories: ex situ , in situ , and knowledge/capacity. Ex situ included the projects related to animal care and management at zoos (i.e., assurance population, husbandry/veterinary care, rescue/rehabilitation/sanctuary), whereas in situ included projects that took place at the species’ native range (i.e., population augmentation, monitoring/assessments, threat mitigation, and habitat creation/restoration/protection). The remaining project types all focused on increasing biological knowledge or the capacity for conservation (i.e. research, education/outreach, management/planning, fundraising). For birds, all three categories of projects were similarly common, with a slightly lower proportion of in situ projects (Fig. 2A ). In contrast, in situ projects were the most common category for invertebrates. Knowledge and capacity-building projects (primarily research) were the most common type of zoo recovery action for mammals and amphibians, accounting for 56% and 40% of their action keywords, respectively.
Conservation activities carried out by North American zoos and aquariums for species listed under the Endangered Species Act, by taxonomic group. Activities were aggregated into three categories based on the activity type keywords: conservation knowledge or capacity (research, education/outreach, management/planning, fundraising), ex situ (assurance population, husbandry/veterinary care, rescue/rehab/sanctuary), and in situ (population augmentation, monitoring/assessments, threat mitigation, and habitat creation/restoration/protection). The total instances of keywords for each taxonomic group are shown in parentheses. ( A ) Distribution of the 468 recovery actions for which zoos and aquariums are the responsible party from recovery plans; a total of 606 keywords were assigned. ( B ) Distribution of the 644 field conservation and research project submissions by zoos to the 2013–2015 Annual Report on Conservation and Science (ARCS) survey; a total of 786 keywords were assigned.
In addition to working with federal agencies in recovery programs, zoos also collaborate with other partners, including academic institutions, research institutions, or universities (collectively “academic institutions”) and other non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Thus we also examined the involvement of these two types of partners in the recovery actions that specified zoos as a responsible party. All four recovery actions related to habitat creation/restoration/protection listed either academic institutions (2 actions) or other NGOs (2 actions) as additional responsible parties, suggesting such field projects may require larger collaborations to implement. Academic institutions were involved in nearly half of the actions with research as a keyword (54 out of 128 actions), but did not collaborate with zoos as much on other types of recovery actions (<13% for all other types). Other NGOs partnered with zoos most frequently on actions related to assurance populations (26 out of 169 actions) and research (26 out of 128 actions), but proportionally they collaborated primarily on actions related to education and outreach (14 out of 35 actions) and threat mitigation (2 out of 8 actions).
Although recovery plans provide an official documentation of the extent to which zoos participate in recovery programs when the plans were created, they do not provide the full picture. Nearly one-third of all U.S. listed animals do not have a recovery plan (482 out of 710 listed animal species had plans as of September 2016), and finalized plans are rarely updated and therefore tend to exclude more recent or current projects. Additionally, a zoo’s involvement may not have been explicitly described as a recovery action, or only the primary holding facilities may have been identified when multiple institutions are involved.
We next summarized zoo conservation activities based on the AZA’s field conservation and research surveys from 2013–2015. These surveys are used to produce the association’s Annual Report on Conservation and Science (ARCS; http://www.aza.org/annual-report-on-conservation-and-science ). In the field conservation survey, AZA member institutions report only their conservation efforts that have direct impacts on animals and habitats in the wild. In the research survey, they report on any hypothesis-driven research conducted at these institutions or by their staff and the resulting publications. Response rates differed between surveys and years, with 86–92% of institutions responding for the field conservation survey and 52–64% responding for the research survey between 2013–2015. Although this dataset likely underrepresents the conservation and research projects in zoos for listed species, it still provides the most comprehensive current summary of these activities across AZA. Because of the specific focus of these surveys, the responses would also exclude education programs that do not directly target the local communities in the species’ native range. Therefore our analysis leaves out many of the conservation-oriented education projects carried out by zoos, which can also have significant impacts on achieving biodiversity conservation 21 .
We queried the database of field conservation and research survey responses for references to ESA-listed species in the project titles, descriptions, or the selected focal species. We tallied the number of conservation project submissions, representing unique combinations of institutions, projects, and species. That is, the same project may involve multiple institutions, and we count these as unique projects for each institution. This is because each institution may submit the project under a different name or description, thereby making it difficult to consistently delineate unique projects. Between 2013–2015, 142 AZA institutions reported a total of 644 active conservation projects involving 74 ESA-listed, U.S. terrestrial and avian species (23 mammals, 21 birds, 12 amphibians, 11 reptiles, and 7 invertebrates). Of these, 50 are currently listed as Endangered and 24 as Threatened. Although 54 of the 74 listings have finalized recovery plans, only 18 of those plans mentioned zoos as responsible parties for recovery actions.
Similar to the actions from recovery plans, we assigned each zoo project from the survey data to one or more of the 11 keywords representing different types of conservation activities (Table 1 ). Of the 786 keywords assigned, most were related to research (25.2%), monitoring/assessments (17.6%), population augmentation (16.0%), and managing assurance populations (12.7%; Fig. 1B ). Fundraising directed to recovery programs or conservation organizations (for purposes unspecified in the survey response) accounted for 11.3% of the keywords. Projects related to education and outreach (targeting local communities in the species’ native range) accounted for 5.2% of the keywords, and all other keywords were used fewer than 3% of the time. Compared to the conservation actions described in recovery plans, zoos reported a smaller proportion of activities related to assurance populations, but a larger proportion related to monitoring and assessments, and to habitat creation/restoration/protection. This suggests that zoos are contributing more to in situ conservation projects than is recognized in recovery plans. Zoos also reported more fundraising projects than represented in recovery plans, and additionally reported several projects related to providing rescue, rehabilitation, or sanctuary facilities. Both data sources agreed that research made up a large proportion of the conservation activities in zoos, and that there was great variation in the types of research conducted. Research projects reported by zoos ranged from understanding the genetic structure of Hawaiian petrel ( Pterodroma sandwichensis ) populations, to measuring stress levels of Guam kingfishers ( Todiramphus cinnamominus ) in human care, to developing gene banking methods for black-footed ferrets ( Mustela nigripes ).
Comparing among taxonomic groups, the majority of zoo conservation projects involved listed mammal species (318 of 644 projects), and only 25 projects involved invertebrates. Although the distribution of projects among taxa is similar to a previous assessment of in situ conservation efforts by zoos around the world 16 , none of the mammalian species in our dataset were primates due to our focus on U.S. species. Based on the keyword categories we assigned to each project, we found in situ projects were most common for listed amphibians and invertebrates (Fig. 2B ), and they primarily consisted of population augmentation projects. Knowledge and capacity projects were least common for amphibians and invertebrates, but they made up the largest proportion of projects for mammals, birds, and reptiles (consisting primarily of research projects). Ex situ projects made up less than 20% of all conservation projects reported by zoos for listed mammals, birds, and reptiles. Compared to the actions from recovery plans, a larger proportion of in situ projects were reported by zoos for all taxonomic groups, and a smaller proportion of ex situ projects were reported for all taxa except amphibians (Fig. 2 ).
We estimated the amount that AZA zoos spend on listed species by summing the project expenditures reported in the ARCS surveys. From 2013–2015, total spending on the reported field conservation and research projects specifically targeting the 74 ESA-listed species summed to $28.9 million, or on average $9.6 million per year. For context, the reported average spending per year on the same set of species in 2013–2015 was $146.4 million by all federal agencies, and $7.9 million by all state agencies 22 , 23 , 24 . Among the different types of conservation activities, the majority of funds were spent on assurance populations, followed by population monitoring and assessment and research (Fig. 3A ). Comparing across taxa, expenditures were greatest on conservation projects for bird and mammal species (Fig. 3B ).
Spending by North American zoos and aquariums on conservation projects for species listed under the Endangered Species Act, as reported in the 2013–2015 Annual Report on Conservation and Science (ARCS) survey. The proportional spending (out of the total $28.9 M spent across 3 years) is shown by ( A ) project keyword and ( B ) taxonomic group.
The recovery plans and AZA surveys provide an overview of the extent to which zoos currently contribute to recovering listed species. However, additional opportunities for conservation may exist, as a number of ESA-listed species have ex situ populations in zoos that are cooperatively managed. Since the 1980s, zoos have collaborated in managing the animals in their care through goal setting, cooperative breeding, and exchanging animals across institutions, with the aim of improving the health (e.g., demographic viability, genetic diversity) of those zoo animal populations 25 , 26 . In North America, cooperatively managed populations are those with a Species Survival Plan ® (SSP) program, which is implemented by AZA member institutions. SSPs may also coordinate the conservation, research, and educational initiatives among institutions to support in situ species recovery. These programs therefore represent opportunities for zoos to contribute further to conservation efforts, because they have an established management structure and working partnerships across institutions. Cooperative management also generates a great deal of species-specific knowledge on breeding, veterinary care, behavior, and demography, which can inform or facilitate conservation actions. For example, knowledge on how to breed animals successfully and to care for and rear offspring may be important for helping to improve reproduction of a threatened species. Further, the establishment of an SSP program demonstrates a long-term commitment to the species by multiple AZA institutions, which may be leveraged to promote engagement in and support for wild populations of the same species.
Overall, 143 of the 482 SSP programs (29.7%) were for ESA-listed species, representing 154 listings (which included separate listings for Distinct Population Segments or subspecies of the same species). The majority of these were for species listed as Endangered (83.4%) and as foreign (77.9%). Of the 387 listings for U.S. terrestrial and avian species, 36 (9.3%) currently have zoo populations managed by an SSP program. Interestingly, only 14 of the 54 species whose recovery plans specified roles for zoos had SSP populations, and 24 of the 74 species identified in the AZA surveys had SSP populations. Only 10 species overlapped across the three datasets, meaning they have recovery plans that specified a role for zoos, conservation projects reported by zoos in AZA surveys, and zoo populations managed by an SSP program. This finding suggests that an SSP program is not required for zoos to participate in recovery programs, and many zoos work with listed species outside of the SSP framework. On the other hand, there are additional SSP programs that could participate in that species’ recovery but currently do not.
Most of the SSP programs for listed species involved mammals, with existing programs for 21 of the 74 (28.4%) U.S. mammal listings (Fig. 4A ). All other listed taxa were much less represented, especially invertebrates, for which the American burying beetle was the only listing (out of 148) with an SSP program. The picture was similar when including both U.S. and foreign listings, with 84 additional SSP programs for foreign-listed mammals, and a smaller number of additional SSP programs for foreign-listed birds and reptiles (14 and 13, respectively; Fig. 4B ). In summary, the majority of SSP programs did not manage listed species, but those that did tended to focus on species that were more at risk (listed as Endangered rather than Threatened). There was also a taxonomic bias for SSP programs to focus on mammals and a geographic bias for non-U.S. species, many of which were native to African and Central American countries. Our results parallel findings from a previous study that zoo and aquarium collections favor larger vertebrate species 5 . However, the bias of SSP programs toward non-U.S. species contrasts with an earlier finding that zoos tended to focus on mammal and bird species that are native to economically developed countries 27 .
The proportion of terrestrial and avian animal species listed under the Endangered Species Act that have cooperatively managed populations in AZA-accredited zoos and aquariums, by taxonomic group and listing status (T = Threatened, E = Endangered). ( A ) The proportion of U.S. listings with managed programs for the listed species. ( B ) The proportion of U.S. and foreign listings with managed programs for the listed species. ( C ) The proportion of U.S. listings with managed programs for a congener of the listed species. ( D ) The proportion of U.S. and foreign listings with managed programs for a congener of the listed species.
Zoos have the potential to contribute even further to species recovery, as shown by the number of listed species that have a congener with a managed SSP population in zoos (Fig. 4C,D ). Management of a closely related species in the same genus produces valuable husbandry and biological information that may be useful for informing the conservation of the listed species. Institutions holding the congeners may also develop education programs or design exhibits to promote conservation actions for the closely related listed species. Additionally, since zoos already have the resources and facilities to house a closely related species, it may be possible for those institutions to house the more threatened species instead, if ex situ breeding or rehabilitation is deemed beneficial (of course, species-specific behaviors and requirements will determine the extent to which that would be feasible, while threats and recovery strategies will determine the appropriateness of an ex situ breeding program). Across all taxa, there were SSP programs for the congeners of 70 out of 387 (18.1%) U.S. listings, and 299 out of 969 (30.9%) U.S. and foreign listings of terrestrial and avian species. In particular, there were managed programs for the congeners of 36.5% and 41.4% of U.S. listings for mammals and reptiles, respectively (Fig. 4C ), and 51.5% and 53.2% of total (U.S. and foreign) listings for mammals and reptiles, respectively (Fig. 4D ). This represents a significant body of knowledge and resources that could greatly enhance species recovery efforts, but have yet to be broadly utilized.
Our evaluation showed that zoos contribute to a diverse array of in situ and ex situ conservation efforts, and serve as important partners in the recovery of threatened species in the U.S. Zoo conservation activities (Table 1 ) spanned many of the conservation actions previously described 7 . Beyond maintaining ex situ populations 5 and increasing public understanding of biodiversity 21 , zoos carry out many more in situ projects than typically recognized (though see Olive and Jansen 12 ), including a large number of monitoring projects. We also found that zoos conduct a range of field- and zoo-based conservation research projects, which were nearly as numerous as ex situ breeding efforts (Fig. 1 ). Biodiversity monitoring and research both help to support successful species recovery, but they are not commonly viewed as significant ways in which zoos contribute to conservation. Our findings support earlier studies that showed these critical conservation actions are increasingly being funded or conducted by NGOs 28 , 29 , including zoos.
However, additional opportunities exist. We found that similar to zoo holdings overall 27 , managed SSP populations currently focus on non-threatened species. Among listed species, however, managed programs do tend to prioritize species that are more at risk of extinction. There are many considerations that determine the selection of species for zoo exhibits, and management programs are increasingly including conservation status in their decision-making. However, if a species is especially difficult to house, cannot reproduce successfully, or has low survivorship in zoos, then establishing ex situ populations may not be feasible or worthwhile. Further, there are ways to contribute to conservation even if zoos are managing the less at-risk species that are closely related to a threatened species, as discussed above.
U.S. zoos may also increase their conservation efforts by managing more native threatened species, as our results showed a tendency for SSP programs to focus on foreign-listed species. Ex situ populations would ideally be established in the species’ native range 2 , but currently >90% of the U.S. listed avian and terrestrial species do not have an SSP population in North American zoos. Further research is needed to evaluate whether and the extent to which those listed species would benefit from ex situ population management. Zoos are also carrying out relatively few education and outreach programs that directly impact listed species in the wild (Fig. 1B ). By including more native threatened species, zoos could develop associated education and outreach programs to engage the community most likely to impact the species and promote direct conservation actions. Of course, zoo education programs that do not directly affect wild populations are still valuable 21 , and we reiterate that our review did not summarize the magnitude of those existing efforts.
Finally, our findings suggest a need for greater coordination across zoos and better engagement with other conservation science partners. For example, 40 institutions reported working on various field conservation and research projects for the polar bear in the AZA surveys, but it is unclear the extent to which these efforts were coordinated to maximize their effectiveness. Only 5 recovery plans (for 5 species) named two or more zoos as the responsible party for any recovery action, suggesting such coordination among zoos is infrequent or poorly represented in plans. Only a quarter of the recovery plan actions conducted by zoos involved either academic or NGO partners, although integrating efforts into larger collaborations could lead to better outcomes 29 . However, coordination with other conservation partners may be increasing, as more partnerships between zoos and academic institutions are being formed ( e . g ., Smithsonian-Mason School of Conservation, the Phoenix Zoo - Arizona State University conservation partnership, the Living Earth Collaborative). Other zoo partnerships supporting species recovery include concentrated breeding centers and consortiums such as the Conservation Centers for Species Survival (C2S2), and AZA’s SAFE: Saving Animals From Extinction, a conservation framework launched in 2015 that prioritizes collaboration 14 . There are also efforts to integrate ex situ and in situ species management through the IUCN Conservation Planning Specialist Group’s One Plan Approach 30 , 31 .
In this assessment we focused on terrestrial and avian species listed under the ESA. Thus, the role of zoos in helping to conserve marine animals, plants, and species with other risk statuses remain to be examined. Additionally, further research is needed to evaluate the impacts of the many zoo conservation projects 18 , which could inform and improve future efforts. In summary, our study highlights the wide-ranging conservation actions conducted by North American zoos, and identify opportunities for better integration with the broader conservation community. By evaluating the current role of zoos in species conservation, our study provides a better understanding of the expertise, resources, and opportunities that zoos can offer as one of the many necessary partners in recovering threatened species.
The recovery plan data analyzed in the current study are included in the Supplementary Information (Table S2 ). The AZA survey data, except financial information, are available on AZA’s website ( http://www.aza.org/field-conservation ; http://www.aza.org/research-and-science ). Additional data are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
McNeely, J. A. Expanding Partnerships in Conservation (Island Press, 1995).
Conde, D. A., Flesness, N., Colchero, F., Jones, O. R. & Scheuerlein, A. An emerging role of zoos to conserve biodiversity. Science 331 , 1390–1391 (2011).
Article PubMed ADS CAS Google Scholar
Zimmermann, A., Hatchwell, M., Dickie, L. A. & West, C. Zoos in the 21st Century: Catalysts for Conservation? (Cambridge University Press, 2007).
Minteer, B. A., Maienschein, J., & Collins, J. P. The Ark and Beyond (The University of Chicago Press, 2018).
Balmford, A., Mace, G. M. & Leader‐Williams, N. Designing the ark: Setting priorities for captive breeding. Conservation Biology 10 , 719–727 (1996).
Article Google Scholar
Salafsky, N. et al . A standard lexicon for biodiversity conservation: Unified classifications of threats and actions. Conservation Biology 22 , 897–911 (2008).
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Conservation Measures Partnership. Classification of conservation actions and threats. Version 2.0, http://cmp-openstandards.org/tools/threats-and-actions-taxonomies/ (2016).
Snyder, N. F. R. et al . Limitations of captive breeding in endangered species recovery. Conservation Biology 10 , 338–348 (1996).
Scott, J. M. et al . Recovery of imperiled species under the Endangered Species Act: the need for a new approach. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 3 , 383–389 (2005).
Conway, W. G. Buying time for wild animals with zoos. Zoo Biol. 30 , 1–8 (2011).
PubMed Google Scholar
Lacy, R. C. Achieving true sustainability of zoo populations. Zoo Biology 32 , 19–26 (2013).
Olive, A. & Jansen, K. The contribution of zoos and aquaria to Aichi Biodiversity Target 12: A case study of Canadian zoos. Global Ecology and Conservation 10 , 103–113 (2017).
Redford, K. H., Jensen, D. B. & Breheny, J. J. Integrating the captive and the wild. Science 338 , 1157–1158 (2012).
Article PubMed ADS Google Scholar
Grow, S., Luke, D. & Ogden, J. Saving Animals from Extinction (SAFE): Unifying the conservation approach of AZA-accredited zoos and aquariums. [Minteer, B., Maienschein, J. & Collins, J. (eds)] The Ark and Beyond 9, 122–128 (The University of Chicago Press, 2018).
Zimmermann, A. The role of zoos in contributing to in situ conservation. [Kleiman, D. G., Thompson, K. V. & Baer, C. K. (eds)] Wild Mammals in Captivity: Principles and Techniques for Zoo Management. 23, 281–287 (The University of Chicago Press, 2010).
Gusset, M. & Dick, G. ‘Building a Future for Wildlife’? Evaluating the contribution of the world zoo and aquarium community to in situ conservation. International Zoo Yearbook 44 , 183–191 (2010).
Evans, D. M. et al . Species recovery in the United States: Increasing the effectiveness of the Endangered Species Act. Issues in Ecology 20 (2016).
Mace, G. M. et al . Measuring conservation success: assessing zoos’ contribution. [Zimmermann, A., Hatchwell, M., Dickie, L. A. & West, C. (eds)] Zoos in the 21st Century: Catalysts for Conservation. 21, 322–342 (Cambridge University Press, 2007).
Ballantyne, R., Packer, J., Hughes, K. & Dierking, L. Conservation learning in wildlife tourism settings: lessons from research in zoos and aquariums. Environmental Education Research 13 , 367–383 (2007).
USFWS. Revised Hawaiian Forest Birds Recovery Plan, https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/060922a.pdf (2006).
Moss, A., Jensen, E. & Gusset, M. Impact of a global biodiversity education campaign on zoo and aquarium visitors. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 15 , 243–247 (2017).
USFWS. Federal and State Endangered and Threatened Species Expenditures – Fiscal year 2013, https://www.fws.gov/ENDANGERED/esa-library/pdf/2013.EXP.FINAL.pdf (2015).
USFWS. Federal and State Endangered and Threatened Species Expenditures – Fiscal year 2014, https://www.fws.gov/ENDANGERED/esa-library/pdf/20160302_final_FY14_ExpRpt.pdf (2016).
USFWS. Federal and State Endangered and Threatened Species Expenditures – Fiscal year 2015, https://www.fws.gov/ENDANGERED/esa-library/pdf/2015_Expenditures_Report.pdf (2017).
Ballou, J. D. et al . Demographic and genetic management of captive populations. [Kleiman, D. G., Thompson, K. V. & Baer, C. K. (eds)] Wild Mammals in Captivity: Principles and Techniques for Zoo Management. 19, 219–252 (University of Chicago Press, 2010).
Henson, P. American zoos: a shifting balance between recreation and conservation. [Minteer, B., Maienschein, J. & Collins, J. (eds)] The Ark and Beyond 5, 65–76 (The University of Chicago Press, 2018).
Martin, T. E., Lurbiecki, H., Joy, J. B. & Mooers, A. O. Mammal and bird species held in zoos are less endemic and less threatened than their close relatives not held in zoos. Anim Conserv 17 , 89–96 (2014).
Bakker, V. J. et al . The changing landscape of conservation science funding in the United States. Conservation Letters 3 , 435–44 (2010).
Lindenmayer, D. B. et al . Improving biodiversity monitoring. Austral Ecology 37 , 285–94 (2012).
Byers, O., Lees, C. M., Wilcken, J. & Schwitzer, C. The One Plan Approach: The philosophy and implementation of CBSG’s approach to integrated species conservation planning. WAZA Magazine 14 , 2–5 (2013).
Google Scholar
Traylor-Holzer, K., Leus, K. & Byers, O. Integrating ex situ management options as part of a One Plan Approach to species conservation. [Minteer, B., Maienschein, J. & Collins, J. (eds)] The Ark and Beyond 10, 129–141 (The University of Chicago Press, 2018).
Download references
We thank all of the AZA-accredited zoos, aquariums, and certified facilities that submitted information about their field conservation and research to AZA’s annual surveys. We also thank AZA’s Field Conservation and Research and Technology Committees for helping to refine surveys, review data submissions, and work with AZA members on their submissions. We thank A. Ahmad and S.Y. Kim for assistance with data compilation.
Authors and affiliations.
Alexander Center for Applied Population Biology, Lincoln Park Zoo, Chicago, IL, USA
Judy P. Che-Castaldo & Lisa J. Faust
Association of Zoos and Aquariums, Silver Spring, MD, USA
Shelly A. Grow
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
J.P.C., S.G. and L.J.F. co-developed the project. S.G. compiled and analyzed the AZA survey data, and J.P.C. compiled and analyzed the recovery plan and managed program data, and prepared the manuscript and figures. All authors reviewed the manuscript.
Correspondence to Judy P. Che-Castaldo .
Competing interests.
The authors declare no competing interests.
Publisher's note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information, rights and permissions.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .
Reprints and permissions
Cite this article.
Che-Castaldo, J.P., Grow, S.A. & Faust, L.J. Evaluating the Contribution of North American Zoos and Aquariums to Endangered Species Recovery. Sci Rep 8 , 9789 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-27806-2
Download citation
Received : 01 March 2018
Accepted : 06 June 2018
Published : 28 June 2018
DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-27806-2
Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:
Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative
Contrasting gut microbiota in captive eurasian otters (lutra lutra) by age.
Archives of Microbiology (2021)
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines . If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.
Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.
On May 19th we celebrated Endangered Species Day, dedicated to learning about and taking action to protect endangered and threatened species. 2023 also marks the 50th anniversary of the landmark Endangered Species Act—a silver lining in the face of a sixth mass extinction .
The Endangered Species Act (ESA):
Despite the Endangered Species Act working to protect more than 1,300 listed species, many considered endangered by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) are not covered by the ESA. Most notably the long-tailed and southern pig-tailed macaques.
Macaques are the most common non-human primates used in biomedical research and are the majority of the 113,000 non-human primates reportedly used in research in 2021 by the United States Department of Agriculture.
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has the ability to grant protections to vulnerable species who face a single threatening factor, and these macaques face more than five each. Beyond animal research, these threats include pollution, residential and commercial development, agricultural development including factory farming, and the pet trade. The ESA can make it illegal to import, export, take, possess, sell, or transport listed threatened or endangered species.
Macaques are largely recognized by experts as adaptable generalist primates . The sharp decline in their numbers can be attributed to a two-pronged issue: the failure of the USFWS to protect these macaques by granting them protections under the ESA and the continued reliance on ineffective animal models for biomedical research.
In fact, between 90—95 percent of drugs found safe and effective in animal tests fail during human clinical trials, primarily due to toxicities not predicted by animal tests or because of lack of efficacy.
We need to accelerate a shift away from animal experimentation, not only for the benefit of human health but to mitigate humanity’s role in the sixth mass extinction . Join us in protecting humans, animals, and the environment by supporting recent developments in medical science, such as human chip models, 3D printed human tissues, and organoids that more faithfully recapitulate human physiology than animal tests and have the potential to predict human safety much more accurately.
CCS is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization. Contributions to CCS are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. EIN 84-3817744
Privacy Policy & Terms
Internet Explorer lacks support for the features of this website. For the best experience, please use a modern browser such as Chrome, Firefox, or Edge.
Permits and authorizations allow people and entities—whether they are researchers, commercial fishermen, a public display facility, or an energy corporation—to conduct their activities legally under the Endangered Species Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act. Learn more about permits and authorizations for protected species.
Why does noaa fisheries issue permits and authorizations for protected species, what’s the difference between directed and incidental take, what types of permits and authorizations are available for endangered and threatened species, what types of permits and authorizations are available for marine mammals, for what activities does noaa fisheries issue permits, which protected species require a permit from noaa fisheries, do i need a permit, how can i find out about pending and issued permits and authorizations.
The Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act are two laws that protect endangered and threatened species and marine mammals. These laws make it illegal to take, export, and import these species or their parts. Some examples of “take” actions are harassing, hunting, capturing, collecting, trapping, and killing protected animals. Learn more about take .
However, there are some exceptions that make it legal to take, export, or import protected animals, such as marine mammals or sea turtles.
Permits and authorizations allow people and entities—whether they are researchers, commercial fishermen, a public display facility, or an energy corporation—to conduct their activities legally under the ESA and MMPA.
By issuing permits and authorizations, NOAA Fisheries is able to:
Directed take means that the activity is a purposeful interaction with the protected animal for a specific purpose that may result in take. Examples include:
Incidental take means that the activity is unrelated to the protected species, but the protected species may still be affected. In these cases, the take is unintentional. Examples include:
Directed Take
Incidental Take
The ESA allows for permits for activities that take protected species incidental to otherwise lawful activities. In these cases, the person or agency is not trying to take the protected species, but they may do unintentionally during their operations. Examples include:
Some marine mammals, like blue whales and Hawaiian monk seals , are listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA. Because these species are also protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act , permits and authorizations for activities on these species must comply with both laws.
Some marine mammals, like sperm whales and Hawaiian monk seals , are listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act . Because these species are protected under both the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act , permits and authorizations for activities on these species must be compliant under both laws.
NOAA Fisheries issues a variety of permits under both the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act .
Incidental Take Authorizations and Permits
Under the MMPA, incidental take authorizations are issued for activities that are not directed at marine mammals but may result in take. Most incidental take authorizations have been issued for activities that produce underwater sound. Examples include:
Other authorizations are issued for marine mammal takes during commercial fishing operations.
Under the ESA, incidental take permits are typically issued when threatened or endangered species may be affected during the operation of:
A habitat conservation plan must accompany an application for an ESA incidental take permit. The habitat conservation plan helps ensure that the effects of the authorized incidental take are minimized or mitigated to the maximum extent practicable.
Directed Take Permits
Directed take permits are issued under the ESA and/or the MMPA for activities such as:
Under the Endangered Species Act , NOAA Fisheries has jurisdiction over endangered and threatened marine species including some marine mammals, some marine and anadromous fish, some marine invertebrates, sea turtles when in the water, and one marine plant. Protected species include both vertebrates and invertebrates and both domestic and foreign species. Examples include:
See the full list of endangered and threatened species managed by NOAA Fisheries
Under the Marine Mammal Protection Act , NOAA Fisheries has jurisdiction over all whales, dolphins and porpoises (cetaceans), and seals and sea lions (pinnipeds). Examples include:
See the full list of marine mammals managed by NOAA Fisheries
Because some species protected under the ESA and/or the MMPA are under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, permits and authorizations for activities affecting those species are issued by the U.S. FWS. Examples include sea turtles on land, walrus, manatees, polar bears, and sea otters. Visit the U.S. FWS website to learn more:
You may need a permit or authorization if you will be conducting activities that directly or indirectly affect endangered or threatened species or marine mammals. Permits may be issued to federal, state, and local agencies, universities, corporations, individuals, and non-governmental organizations.
To get started, view the Pre-Application Guide in NOAA Fisheries’ online application system for authorizations and permits for protected species. This guide will help you determine the type of permit you need and how to apply for it.
For information about incidental take of marine mammals during commercial fishing and how to obtain a certificate, visit our Marine Mammal Authorization Program page .
April 15, 2009
There are more to zoos than putting animals on display
Dear EarthTalk: Do zoos have serious programs to save endangered species, besides putting a few captives on display for everyone to see? -- Kelly Traw, Seattle, WA
Most zoos are not only great places to get up close to wildlife, but many are also doing their part to bolster dwindling populations of animals still living free in the wild. To wit, dozens of zoos across North America participate in the Association of Zoos and Aquarium’s (AZA’s) Species Survival Plan (SSP) Program, which aims to manage the breeding of specific endangered species in order to help maintain healthy and self-sustaining populations that are both genetically diverse and demographically stable.
The end goal of many SSPs is the reintroduction of captive-raised endangered species into their native wild habitats. According to the AZA, SSPs and related programs have helped bring black-footed ferrets, California condors, red wolves and several other endangered species back from the brink of extinction over the last three decades. Zoos also use SSPs as research tools to better understand wildlife biology and population dynamics, and to raise awareness and funds to support field projects and habitat protection for specific species. AZA now administers some 113 different SSPs covering 181 individual species.
If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing . By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
To be selected as the focus of an SSP, a species must be endangered or threatened in the wild. Also, many SSP species are “flagship species,” meaning that they are well-known to people and engender strong feelings for their preservation and the protection of their habitat. The AZA approves new SSP programs if various internal advisory committees deem the species in question to be needy of the help and if sufficient numbers of researchers at various zoos or aquariums can dedicate time and resources to the cause.
AZA’s Maryland-based Conservation and Science Department administers the worldwide SSP program, generating master plans for specific species and coordinating research, transfer and reintroductions. Part of this process involves designing a “family tree” of particular managed populations in order to achieve maximum genetic diversity and demographic stability. AZA also makes breeding and other management recommendations with consideration given to the logistics and feasibility of transfers between institutions as well as maintenance of natural social groupings. In some cases, master plans may recommend not to breed specific animals, so as to avoid having captive populations outgrow available holding spaces.
While success stories abound, most wildlife biologists consider SSP programs to be works in progress. AZA zoos have been instrumental, for instance, in establishing a stable population of bongos, a threatened forest antelope native to Africa, through captive breeding programs under the SSP program. Many of these captive-bred bongos have subsequently been released into the wild and have helped bolster dwindling population numbers accordingly.
Of course, for every success story there are dozens of other examples where results have been less satisfying . SSP programs for lowland gorillas, Andean condors, giant pandas and snow leopards, among others, have not had such clear success, but remain part of the larger conservation picture for the species in question and the regions they inhabit.
CONTACTS : AZA’s Conservation & Science Program, www.aza.org/Conscience .
EarthTalk is produced by E/The Environmental Magazine. SEND YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS TO: EarthTalk , P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; [email protected] . Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php . EarthTalk is now a book! Details and order information at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalkbook .
Conservation genomic study of hopea hainanensis (dipterocarpaceae), an endangered tree with extremely small populations on hainan island, china.
The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
Hopea hainanensis Merrill & Chun is considered a keystone and indicator species in the tropical lowland rainforests of Hainan Island. Due to its high-quality timber, H. hainanensis has been heavily exploited, leading to its classification as a First-Class National Protected Plants in China and a Plant Species with Extremely Small Populations (PSESP). This study analyzed genome-wide single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) obtained through Restriction site-associated DNA sequencing (RAD-seq) from 78 adult trees across 10 H. hainanensis populations on Hainan Island. The nucleotide diversity of the sampled populations ranged from 0.00096 to 0.00138, which is lower than that observed in several other PSESP and endangered tree species. Bayesian unsupervised clustering, principal component analysis, and NJ tree reconstruction identified 3 to 5 genetic clusters in H. hainanensis, most of which were geographically widespread and shared by multiple populations. Demographic history analysis based on pooled samples indicated that the decline of the H. hainanensis population began approximately 20,000 years ago, starting from an ancestral population size of about 10,000 individuals. The reduction of population size accelerated around 4,000 years ago and has continued to the present, resulting in a severely reduced population on Hainan Island. Intensified genetic drift in small and isolated H. hainanensis populations may contribute to moderate differentiation between some of them, as revealed by pairwise Fst. In conclusion, our conservation genomic study confirms severe population decline and extremely low level of nucleotide variation in H. hainanensis on Hainan Island. These findings provide critical insights for the sustainable management and genetic restoration of H. hainanensis on Hainan Island.
Keywords: Hopea hainanensis Merrill & Chun, conservation genomics, Plant Species with Extremely Small Populations, Population decline, Reduced-representation genome sequencing
Received: 03 Jun 2024; Accepted: 09 Aug 2024.
Copyright: © 2024 Tang, Long, Wang, Rao, Long, Yan and Liu. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence: Liang Tang, Hainan University, Haikou, China Jun-qiao Long, Haikou Marine Geological Survey Center, China Geological Survey, Haikou, 571127, Hainan Province, China Hai-ying Wang, Hainan University, Haikou, China Li Yan, Haikou Marine Geological Survey Center, China Geological Survey, Haikou, 571127, Hainan Province, China Yong-bo Liu, Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences, Beijing, Beijing Municipality, China
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
This site displays a prototype of a “Web 2.0” version of the daily Federal Register. It is not an official legal edition of the Federal Register, and does not replace the official print version or the official electronic version on GPO’s govinfo.gov.
The documents posted on this site are XML renditions of published Federal Register documents. Each document posted on the site includes a link to the corresponding official PDF file on govinfo.gov. This prototype edition of the daily Federal Register on FederalRegister.gov will remain an unofficial informational resource until the Administrative Committee of the Federal Register (ACFR) issues a regulation granting it official legal status. For complete information about, and access to, our official publications and services, go to About the Federal Register on NARA's archives.gov.
The OFR/GPO partnership is committed to presenting accurate and reliable regulatory information on FederalRegister.gov with the objective of establishing the XML-based Federal Register as an ACFR-sanctioned publication in the future. While every effort has been made to ensure that the material on FederalRegister.gov is accurately displayed, consistent with the official SGML-based PDF version on govinfo.gov, those relying on it for legal research should verify their results against an official edition of the Federal Register. Until the ACFR grants it official status, the XML rendition of the daily Federal Register on FederalRegister.gov does not provide legal notice to the public or judicial notice to the courts.
Design Updates: As part of our ongoing effort to make FederalRegister.gov more accessible and easier to use we've enlarged the space available to the document content and moved all document related data into the utility bar on the left of the document. Read more in our feature announcement .
A Notice by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on 08/08/2024
This document has been published in the Federal Register . Use the PDF linked in the document sidebar for the official electronic format.
This table of contents is a navigational tool, processed from the headings within the legal text of Federal Register documents. This repetition of headings to form internal navigation links has no substantive legal effect.
Supplementary information:, species covered in this notice, applications received, permit 1386-11m, permit 1484-8r, permit 1523-5r, permit 15205-5r, permit 15230-4r, permit 16298-5r, permit 17062-7r, permit 17761-3r, permit 18852-3r, permit 18921-3r, permit 19263-3r, permit 22944-2r, permit 23629-2r, permit 23843-2r, permit 26776, permit 27091-2m, permit 27824, permit 28055, permit 28158, permit 28199, permit 28292.
This feature is not available for this document.
Additional information is not currently available for this document.
Document page views are updated periodically throughout the day and are cumulative counts for this document. Counts are subject to sampling, reprocessing and revision (up or down) throughout the day.
This document is also available in the following formats:
More information and documentation can be found in our developer tools pages .
This PDF is the current document as it appeared on Public Inspection on 08/07/2024 at 8:45 am.
It was viewed 0 times while on Public Inspection.
If you are using public inspection listings for legal research, you should verify the contents of the documents against a final, official edition of the Federal Register. Only official editions of the Federal Register provide legal notice of publication to the public and judicial notice to the courts under 44 U.S.C. 1503 & 1507 . Learn more here .
Document headings vary by document type but may contain the following:
See the Document Drafting Handbook for more details.
National oceanic and atmospheric administration.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of receipt of application; 13 permit renewals, 2 permit modifications, and 6 new permits.
Notice is hereby given that NMFS has received 21 scientific research permit application requests relating to Pacific salmon, steelhead, green sturgeon, rockfish, and eulachon. The proposed research is intended to increase knowledge of species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and to help guide management and conservation efforts.
Comments or requests for a public hearing on the applications must be received at the appropriate address or fax number (see ADDRESSES ) no later than 5 p.m. Pacific standard time on September 9, 2024.
All written comments on the applications should be sent by email to [email protected] (please include the permit number in the subject line of the email).
The applications may be viewed online at: https://apps.nmfs.noaa.gov/preview/preview_open_for_comment.cfm .
Diana Dishman, Portland, OR (ph.: 503-736-4466), email: [email protected] ). Permit application instructions are available from the address above, or online at https://apps.nmfs.noaa.gov .
The following listed species are covered in this notice:
Chinook salmon ( Oncorhynchus tshawytscha ): Threatened Puget Sound (PS); threatened Snake River (SnkR) fall-run; threatened SnkR spring/summer-run; endangered Upper Columbia River (UCR) spring-run; threatened Upper Willamette River (UWR); threatened Lower Columbia River (LCR); endangered Sacramento River (SacR) winter-run; threatened California Coastal (CC).
Steelhead ( O. mykiss ): Threatened Middle Columbia River (MCR); threatened PS; threatened SnkR Basin; threatened UCR; threatened UWR; threatened Central California Coast (CCC); threatened California Central Valley (CCV); threatened Northern California (NC); threatened LCR.
Chum salmon ( O. keta ): Threatened Hood Canal summer-run (HCS); threatened Columbia River (CR).
Coho salmon ( O. kisutch ): threatened Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast (SONCC); endangered Central California Coast (CCC); threatened LCR.
Sockeye salmon ( O. nerka ): Endangered SnkR; Threatened Ozette Lake (OL).
Eulachon ( Thaleichthys pacificus ): Threatened southern (S).
Rockfish: Endangered Puget Sound/Georgia Basin (PS/GB) Boccacio ( Sebastes paucispinis ) Distinct Population Segment (DPS); threatened PS/GB Yelloweye ( Sebastes ruberrimus ) DPS.
Green sturgeon ( Acipenser medirostris ): Threatened southern Distinct Population Segment (SDPS).
Scientific research permits are issued in accordance with section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA ( 16 U.S.C. 1531 et. seq ) and regulations governing listed fish and wildlife permits ( 50 CFR 222-226 ). NMFS issues permits based on findings that such permits: (1) are applied for in good faith; (2) if granted and exercised, would not operate to the disadvantage of the listed species that are the subject of the permit; and (3) are consistent with the purposes and policy of section 2 of the ESA. The authority to take listed species is subject to conditions set forth in the permits.
Anyone requesting a hearing on an application listed in this notice should set out the specific reasons why a hearing on that application would be appropriate (see ADDRESSES ). Such hearings are held at the discretion of the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NMFS.
Under permit 1386-11M, the Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE) is seeking to modify a permit that would authorize them to continue taking adult and juvenile PS Chinook salmon, PS steelhead, HCS chum salmon, OL sockeye salmon, UCR spring-run Chinook salmon, UCR steelhead, MCR steelhead, SnkR spring/summer-run Chinook salmon, SnkR fall-run Chinook salmon, SnkR steelhead, LCR Chinook salmon, LCR coho salmon, LCR steelhead, and CR chum salmon. in order to characterize toxic contaminants in resident freshwater fish across Washington.
The WDOE conducts this research in order to meet Federal and State regulatory requirements. This research would benefit listed species by identifying toxic contaminants in resident and prey fish and thereby inform pollution control actions. The WDOE proposes to capture fish using various methods including backpack and boat electrofishing, beach seining, block, fyke, and gill netting, and angling. All captured salmon and steelhead would either be released immediately or held temporarily in an aerated live well to help them recover before release. The researchers do not propose to kill any fish but a small number may die as an unintended result of research activities.
Under permit 1484-8R, the Washington Department of Natural Resources (WA DNR), Pacific Cascade Region, is seeking to renew for 5 years a permit that would authorize them to continue taking juvenile MCR steelhead, LCR Chinook salmon, LCR coho salmon, LCR steelhead, and CR chum salmon in order to identify fish-bearing streams on WA DNR land in Southwest Washington. Most streams are typed as fish or non-fish bearing based on the physical characteristics of average width and gradient, and connectivity to established fish-bearing waters. This activity will occur on WA DNR land in Lewis, Pacific, Grays Harbor, Wahkiakum, Clark, Cowlitz, Skamania, and Klickitat counties in the state of Washington.
Juveniles would be collected via backpack electrofishing, and would be captured, handled (weighed, measured, and checked for marks or tags), and released. The captured fish would be identified and released back to the waters from which they came. In some cases, the researchers may not actually capture any fish but would merely note their presence, however electrofishing where listed species are observed would still be reported as take. The researchers are not proposing to kill any of the listed fish being taken, but a small number may be killed as an inadvertent result of these activities. The information gathered would be used to determine salmonid presence and distribution and thereby inform land management decisions on WA DNR holdings. This information would benefit listed species by helping WDNR identify existing man-made fish barriers, and ensuring fish-bearing streams receive adequate riparian buffers.
Under permit 1523-5R, the National Council for Air and Stream Improvements (NCASI) is seeking to renew for 5 years a permit that would authorize them to continue taking juvenile and adult UWR Chinook salmon in order to study water quality and biological conditions in rivers receiving paper and pulp mill discharges from their facilities. This work would take place in the upper Willamette and McKenzie Rivers in Oregon.
Adult and juvenile fish would be collected via backpack electrofishing or boat electrofishing. Juvenile and adult fish may be captured, handled (weighed, measured, and checked for marks or tags), and released. In some cases, the researchers may not actually capture any fish but would merely note their presence, however electrofishing where listed species are observed would still be reported as take. The researchers are not proposing to kill any of the listed fish being captured, but a small number of fish may be killed as an inadvertent result of these activities.
The goal of the project is to identify changes in physical, chemical, and biological conditions in discharge watersheds, including biological assessments of periphyton, macroinvertebrate, and resident fish communities. Monitoring natural variability as well as changes resulting from pulp and paper mill discharges will allow researchers to identify where key sources of fish stress from impaired water quality are in the context of the larger watershed, and to rank the magnitude of those stressors. This study focuses on resident fish rather than migratory species such as ESA-listed salmon and steelhead, however, we expect that identifying areas with impaired water quality or habitat will benefit recovery planning for listed as well.
Under permit 15205-5R, Kwiáht the (Center for the Historical Ecology of the Salish Sea) is seeking to renew for 5 years a permit that would authorize them to continue taking juvenile PS Chinook salmon in order to understand long term changes in the food web that supports Salish Sea Chinook salmon populations. This work would take place on Lopez Island, Waldron Island, and Decatur Island in San Juan County, Washington.
Juveniles would be collected via beach seine. Juvenile fish identified as hatchery-origin would be captured, and may be handled (measured, weighed, and checked for marks or tags) prior to release. Captured natural-origin juveniles would be anesthetized, checked for marks and tags, lavaged for stomach contents, and tissue sampled prior to release. Scales shed during handling would also be retained. The researchers are not proposing to kill any of the listed fish being captured, but a small number of fish may be killed as an inadvertent result of these activities.
The purpose of this work is to characterize the food web supporting rearing juvenile Chinook salmon in the nearshore habitats of the San Juan Islands, and is expected to benefit ESA-listed PS Chinook salmon by identifying factors that may be limiting the growth and survival of outmigrating juveniles. A regime shift in regional weather patterns starting in 2014-2015 may have de-synchronized the relationship between outmigrating juvenile Chinook salmon and availability of prey, and this work aims to evaluate whether naturally-produced Chinook salmon can adapt to changes in key prey resources.
Under permit 15230-4R, the West Fork Environmental, Inc. is seeking to renew for 5 years a permit that would authorize them to continue taking juvenile PS Chinook salmon and PS steelhead in order to better understand the seasonal use of various reaches of the Tolt River by juvenile summer steelhead prior to their outmigration as smolts. These activities would take place in King County, Washington.
Juveniles would be collected via backpack electrofishing and hook and line angling. Juvenile Chinook salmon would be captured, handled (weighed, measured, checked for marks and tags), and released. Captured juvenile steelhead would be anesthetized, tissue sampled and PIT-tagged prior to release. A subset of steelhead will also have scale samples collected. The researchers are not proposing to kill any of the listed fish being captured, but a small number of fish may be killed as an inadvertent result of these activities.
The purpose of this study is to understand the reach-specific characteristics of juvenile summer steelhead rearing in the Tolt River across seasons, including information about timing of movement, size at age, and growth of juvenile steelhead in the upper reach. This work will also provide a better understanding of juvenile and adult summer steelhead movement across seasons, and the relative contribution of hatchery-origin fish to the summer steelhead population. This work is expected to benefit ESA-listed PS steelhead by informing managers about factors that may be limiting steelhead production within the Tolt River basin.
Under permit 16298-5R, the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes Fisheries Department is seeking to renew for 5 years a permit that would authorize them to continue taking adult SnkR spring/summer-run Chinook salmon and SnkR Basin steelhead in order to measure adult and juvenile Chinook salmon abundance and other salmon population viability parameters in Bear Valley Creek, Idaho.
Juveniles would be collected via screw trap, and the majority would be captured, handled (weighed, measured, and checked for marks and tags), and released. A subsample of captured juveniles would be anesthetized, tissue sampled, PIT-tagged, and may also have scale samples collected prior to release. Adults would be observed via a temporary fish counting station comprising a fish funneling weir, fish counting chamber, video surveillance system, and PIT tag antenna. Spawning ground surveys and creel surveys would also be conducted to enumerate spawning adults. No adult capture, handling, sampling, or tagging is proposed, but fish may be unintentionally injured or killed if impinged on or entangled in the weir. The researchers are not proposing to kill any of the listed fish being captured, but a small number of fish may be killed as an inadvertent result of these activities.
The purpose of this work is to continue maintaining a long-term dataset for Chinook salmon in Bear Valley Creek that includes information on abundance, productivity, spatial structure, run-timing, proportion of hatchery-origin contribution to the population, and genetic diversity. This work is expected to benefit ESA-listed SnkR Chinook salmon and steelhead by assisting fishery resource managers in identifying key factors that are preventing recovery in this basin.
Under permit 17062-7R, the NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC) is seeking to renew a permit that would authorize them to continue taking juvenile and adult PS Chinook salmon, PS steelhead, PS/Georgia Basin DPS bocaccio, PS/Georgia Basin DPS yelloweye rockfish, HCS chum salmon, and adult Southern DPS eulachon in order to collect demographic information and genetic samples from rockfish in Puget Sound. This work would take place across the main basins of Puget Sound, Hood Canal, and the San Juan Islands and other coastal areas in northern Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fuca in the state of Washington.
Juveniles would be collected via minnow trap, moored mesh bags, hand or dip nets, and hook and line angling. Any Chinook salmon, steelhead, or chum collected would be handled (weighed, measured, checked for marks and tags) and released. Adult eulachon may also be unintentionally captured via these methods and would be released. Juvenile rockfish would be intentionally lethally sacrificed for genetic, tissue, and otolith analysis, and a small number may be from ESA-listed bocaccio or yelloweye rockfish DPSs. Adult salmon, steelhead, and rockfish would be collected via hook and line angling. Adult salmon and steelhead would be released without bringing them on board research vessels. Adult rockfish would be handled (weighed, measured, checked for marks and tags), tissue sampled, and floy-tagged prior to release at depth using a rapid descending device. The researchers are proposing to kill a small number of listed juvenile rockfish, and a small number of additional juvenile and adult fish may be killed as an inadvertent result of these activities.
The goal of this work is to collect biological, genetic, physiological and habitat information to evaluate bocaccio DPS structure and investigate how rocky reef, kelp forest, and eelgrass habitat characteristics affect the relative quality of these areas as nursery habitat for rockfishes in Puget Sound. This work is expected to benefit ESA-listed rockfish by providing more information on the structure of the endangered bocaccio DPS, and on juvenile rearing habitat quality and trophic relationships of rockfish relevant to managing yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio for recovery.
This study falls within the scope of the NWFSC research program that we previously analyzed in Biological Opinion WCRO-2023-01601. In that opinion, we concluded that the NWFSC research program would not jeopardize the continued existence of any ESA-listed species or destroy or adversely modify their critical habitats. In reaching our conclusion, we also considered activities related to permitting or authorizing individual studies under that research program for up to 10 years. Therefore, neither this study nor subsequently issuing a section 10(a)(1)(A) permit requires further consultation under the ESA.
Under permit 17761-3R, the East Bay Municipal Utility District is seeking to renew a permit that would authorize them to take adult and juvenile CCV steelhead in order to conduct monitoring and research of anadromous and resident fishes in the lower Mokelumne River. This work would take place in the San Joaquin Valley, in California.
Juveniles would be collected via backpack electrofishing, boat electrofishing, hook and line angling, beach seine, incline plane trap, screw trap, fish ladder, fyke trap, bypass trap, snorkel survey, and midwater trawl. All juvenile steelhead captured would be handled (weighed, measured, checked for marks and tags), and may be anesthetized as needed to collect accurate measurements, prior to release. A subsample of captured juveniles would be anesthetized, tissue sampled, and may be marked with photonic dye, elastomer tags, coded-wire tags, PIT-tags, acoustic tags, or floy tags prior to release. A subset of captured juvenile steelhead would also be gastric lavaged for stomach contents. A batch of hatchery-reared juvenile steelhead may also be implanted with acoustic tags prior to release.
Adults would be collected via fish weir, boat electrofishing, fish ladder, hook and line angling, incline plane trap, screw trap, fyke trap, and midwater trawl. Adults would be captured, handled (anesthetized, weighed, measured, and checked for marks or tags), and released. A subsample of captured adults would be anesthetized, tissue sampled and may be marked with photonic dye, elastomer tags, coded-wire tags, PIT-tags, acoustic tags, or floy tags prior to release. A subset of captured adult steelhead would also be gastric lavaged for stomach contents. Spawned adults or post-spawn carcasses would be enumerated via spawning surveys. Juvenile and adult fish would also be observed during snorkel surveys and video monitoring in the fish ladder. The researchers are not proposing to kill any of the listed fish being captured, but a small number of fish may be killed as an inadvertent result of these activities.
The goals of this project are to measure the success of the Lower Mokelumne River Restoration Program and determine if the modifications of the Lower Mokelumne River Project are appropriate for conserving fish and wildlife resources in the lower Mokelumne River. This project is expected to benefit ESA-listed species by providing scientific data to the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) Comprehensive Assessment and Monitoring Program (CAMP) to evaluate the relative effectiveness of CVPIA actions in restoring anadromous fish production.
Under permit 18852-3R, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Mid-Columbia Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office is seeking to renew for 5 years a permit that would authorize them to continue taking juvenile and adult UCR spring-run Chinook salmon, UCR steelhead, and MCR steelhead in order to define the distribution and status of Pacific Lamprey, Bull Trout, and other native fish species. This work would take place in the Yakima, Wenatchee, Entiat, Methow, and Okanogan watersheds in the state of Washington.
Juveniles would be collected via backpack electrofishing, hand or dip net, fish ladders and weirs, minnow traps, and fyke nets. Most juvenile Chinook salmon and steelhead would not be targeted and, if captured, would be handled and immediately released. A subsample of captured juveniles may be anesthetized to identify species, obtain weights and measurements, and scanned for PIT tags before being released. Juvenile MCR steelhead trout captured in the Yakima Basin may be PIT-tagged and tissue sampled as well. Adults would be collected at dams and other structures and in traps, and may be caught by hook and line angling. Adult Chinook salmon or steelhead would be captured, handled (anesthetized, weighed, measured, and checked for marks or tags), and released, and may be anesthetized to identify species, obtain weights and measurements, and scanned for PIT tags before being allowed to recover and released. Spawned adults or post-spawn carcasses would be enumurated via spawning surveys. Juvenile and adult fish would also be observed during snorkel surveys. The researchers are not proposing to kill any of the listed fish being captured, but a small number of fish may be killed as an inadvertent result of these activities.
The purpose of this project is to assess recovery actions including capture and transport of Bull Trout to upstream of barriers, assessing fish utilization of restored habitat, and assessing Pacific Lamprey passage at existing structures and at lamprey-passage-engineered structures. This work is expected to benefit ESA-listed fish under the jurisdiction of the USFWS, and also provide information on passage barriers and habitat use relevant to managing listed Chinook salmon and steelhead in the UCR and MCR.
Under permit 18921-3R, the Samish Indian Nation is seeking to renew a permit that would authorize them to continue taking juvenile PS Chinook salmon and PS steelhead, and adult southern DPS eulachon in order to monitor the presence of fish species within and around the Cypress Island Secret Harbor restoration site. This work would take place on Cypress Island in Skagit County, Washington.
Juvenile PS Chinook salmon and steelhead and adult eulachon would be collected via beach seine. Captured fish would be handled (weighed, measured, and checked for marks or tags), and released. The researchers are not proposing to kill any of the listed fish being captured, but a small number of fish may be killed as an inadvertent result of these activities.
The purpose of this work is to assess the effectiveness of the Cypress Island Secret Harbor restoration project over 10 years after it was completed; particularly forage fish and salmonid habitat use within the site. Effective restoration at this site is expected to increase the amount of high quality estuarine habitat available to rearing PS Chinook salmon and steelhead juveniles, and this monitoring will provide managers information about whether the intended benefit has been realized.
Under permit 19263-3R, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) is seeking to renew for 5 years a permit that would authorize them to continue taking juvenile SnkR spring/summer-run Chinook salmon, SnkR Basin steelhead, and SnkR sockeye salmon in order to determine the distribution and abundance of various fish species in the Salmon River basin. This work would take place throughout the Salmon River basin in Idaho.
Juveniles would be collected via boat electrofishing. Juveniles of all three ESA-listed species may be anesthetized during capture and handling, however any SnkR sockeye juveniles will be released without tagging. A subsample of captured juvenile Chinook salmon and steelhead may be anesthetized, tissue sampled and PIT-tagged prior to release. In some cases, the researchers may not actually capture any fish but would merely note their presence, however electrofishing where listed species are observed would still be reported as take. The researchers are not proposing to kill any of the listed fish being captured, but a small number of fish may be killed as an inadvertent result of these activities.
The purpose of this project is to address various IDFG priority fisheries management and research issues relevant to their mandates, and to evaluate completed habitat restoration activities and prioritize future restoration actions. Both ESA-listed and resident fish are expected to benefit from research that will help inform decisions about how and where to protect and improve habitat conditions throughout the upper Salmon River basin.
Under permit 22944-2R, the NMFS NWFSC is seeking to renew a permit that would authorize them to continue taking juvenile UCR spring-run Chinook salmon, UCR steelhead, MCR steelhead, SnkR spring/summer-run Chinook salmon, SnkR fall-run Chinook salmon, SnkR Basin steelhead, SnkR sockeye salmon, LCR Chinook salmon, LCR coho salmon, LCR steelhead, CR chum salmon, Upper Willamette River Chinook salmon, and Upper Willamette River steelhead in order to document patterns of habitat occurrence, diet, and health indicators in juvenile salmon and steelhead in the Lower Columbia River. This work would take place in nearshore areas of the Lower Columbia River in Washington and Oregon, and in the Lower Willamette River in Oregon.
Juvenile salmon and steelhead would be collected via beach seine. Juvenile fish would be captured, handled (weighed, measured, and checked for marks and tags), and may be anesthetized to obtain measurements prior to release. A subsample of captured Chinook salmon juveniles would be anesthetized and further tissue sampled and PIT-tagged prior to release, and a small number would also be intentionally lethally sacrificed to determine their lipid content, conduct otolith analysis for health and growth assessment, do stomach content diet analyses, and take tissue samples for genetic stock identification. The researchers are proposing to kill a small number of listed fish, and a small number of fish may also be killed as an inadvertent result of these activities.
The objectives of the study are to better understand how juvenile salmonids utilize tidal freshwater habitats in the Columbia, to assess the quality of representative habitats in the lower river, to provide baseline data to guide habitat restoration and remediation activities, and to monitor the success of such activities at selected sites. The study is expected to benefit ESA-listed fish species by providing relevant information on (a) how habitat degradation may be affecting listed stocks that migrate through the Lower Columbia River and (b) what steps that can be taken to improve habitat quality.
Under permit 23629-2R, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is seeking to renew for 5 years a permit that would authorize them to continue taking adult UWR Chinook salmon and SONCC coho salmon in order to evaluate contaminant exposure, bioaccumulation, and effects in aquatic ecosystems and aquatic-dependent wildlife by assessing a wide range of contaminants ( e.g., mercury, lead, copper, selenium, pesticides, organochlorines, PDBEs, and other emerging contaminants) in various fish and inland aquatic invertebrate species over a range of habitats and locations. This work would take place in the Willamette and Rogue River basins in the state of Oregon.
Juvenile and adult salmon would be collected via backpack electrofishing, boat electrofishing, hook and line angling, gill net, beach seine, and minnow trap. This contaminant study targets resident fish species and does not target ESA-listed salmon and steelhead, therefore listed fish would be captured, handled (weighed, measured, and checked for marks or tags), and swiftly released. In some cases, the researchers may not actually capture any fish but would merely note their presence, however electrofishing where listed species are observed would still be reported as take. The researchers are not proposing to kill any of the listed fish being captured, but a small number of fish may be killed as an inadvertent result of these activities.
The purpose of this work is to evaluate contaminant risks in aquatic ecosystems of the Pacific Northwest and assess the factors that influence contaminant exposure and effects in aquatic wildlife. This work is expected to benefit ESA-listed salmon by providing greater understanding on where and why contaminant threats exist, what impacts they may have on ecological function, and how management efforts can be targeted to minimize potential risk and thereby help recovery planning for these species.
Under permit 23843-2R the Skagit River System Cooperative is seeking to renew a permit that would authorize them to take juvenile PS Chinook salmon and PS steelhead in order to measure changes in fish densities, smolt production, and habitat attributable to restoration activities to continue the assessment of restoration efforts within the Skagit River and its floodplain. This work will take place in multiple locations across the Skagit River Basin in the State of Washington.
Juveniles PS Chinook salmon and steelhead would be collected via weir, backpack electrofishing, boat electrofishing, or beach seining. Juvenile fish would be captured, handled (weighed, measured, and checked for marks or tags), and released. A subsample of captured juveniles would marked with a caudal fin clip or dye prior to release. In some cases, the researchers may not actually capture any fish but would merely note their presence, however electrofishing where listed species are observed would still be reported as take. Spawning adults or post-spawn carcasses would be enumurated via spawning surveys. Juvenile and adult fish would also be observed during snorkel surveys. The researchers are not proposing to kill any of the listed fish being captured, but a small number of fish may be killed as an inadvertent result of these activities.
The goals of this project are to conduct traditional restoration effectiveness monitoring following restoration projects in the Skagit River Basin, and also contribute to development of a fish and habitat association model to inform restoration design. This work is expected to benefit ESA-listed fish by informing adaptive management of one restoration site specifically (Barnaby Slough) to increase the likelihood it will provide the expected habitat benefits for PS Chinook salmon and steelhead, and more broadly, improved fish and habitat association models that incorporate hydrodynamics will inform future restoration design.
Under permit 26776, Anchor QEA is seeking a new permit that would authorize them to take juvenile PS Chinook salmon and PS steelhead in order to conduct stream typing and evaluate culverts as potential barriers to fish passage in support of Pierce County. This work would be conducted in locations across Pierce County, Washington.
Juvenile PS Chinook salmon and steelhead would be collected via hand or dip netting and backpack electrofishing. Captured fish would be handled (weighed, measured, and checked for marks or tags) prior to release. In some cases, the researchers may not actually capture any fish but would merely note their presence, however electrofishing where listed species are observed would still be reported as take. The researchers will only deploy electrofishing if attempts to visually observe and identify fish from the bank and to sample fish by dip nets are unsuccessful. The researchers are not proposing to kill any of the listed fish being captured, but a small number of fish may be killed as an inadvertent result of these activities.
The purpose of this work is to confirm the upper extent of fish presence in potentially fish-bearing streams, and support the prioritization of fish passage structures to establish access to suitable habitat in the upstream extent of fish-bearing habitat. This work is expected to benefit ESA-listed species by informing the planning of restoration and enhancement efforts to improve salmonid habitat, and salmonid access upstream of anthropogenic barriers in Pierce County.
Under permit 27091-2M, the Port of Seattle is seeking to modify a permit that would authorize them to take additional juvenile PS Chinook salmon and PS steelhead in order to assess juvenile salmonid habitat use and the presence of key invertebrate prey resources in the Lower Duwamish Waterway T-117 restoration site. This work would be conducted solely within the Lower Duwamish River in King County, Washington.
Juveniles would be collected via fyke net. Juvenile salmon and steelhead would be anesthetized, tissue sampled and PIT-tagged prior to release. The researchers are not proposing to kill any of the listed fish being captured, but a small number of fish may be killed as an inadvertent result of these activities.
The purpose of this project is to characterize salmonid use of the restoration site during individual tidal cycles and monitor the physical and biological characteristics of the site to measure whether the restoration project is meeting its stated objectives. The restoration of the T-117 site is expected to benefit PS Chinook salmon and steelhead by increasing the area and functional value of riparian, estuarine marsh, exposed intertidal substrate, and shallow subtidal habitats used by salmonids, and this monitoring work will increase the likelihood the restoration will be managed to provide the expected habitat benefits.
Under permit 27824, the USGS is seeking a new permit that would authorize them to take juvenile SacR winter-run Chinook salmon in order to conduct egg incubation studies and mark-recapture monitoring programs to address juvenile production of winter-run Chinook salmon. This work will be conducted in Battle Creek and the Sacramento River below Shasta Dam, in the California Central Valley.
Juveniles would be collected via screw traps, and captured juveniles would be anesthetized, tissue sampled and PIT-tagged prior to release. Released juveniles may be recaptured using beach seines or backpack electrofishing, and handled (weighed, measured, checked for marks and tags) prior to release. Fertilized eggs from Livingston Stone National Fish Hatchery would be placed in egg boxes and set in designated redd locations along the Sacramento River. The egg boxes would be enclosed in mesh and visually observed from fertilization through emergence, and surviving alevins or fry will be released into the Sacramento River. The researchers are not proposing to kill any of the listed fish being captured, but a small number of fish may be killed as an inadvertent result of these activities.
The purpose of this project is to estimate tributary-level survival, somatic growth, and movement patterns of Chinook salmon, focusing on winter-run eggs and juveniles. These studies will help characterize influences of environmental conditions on salmon productivity, and are expected to benefit SacR winter-run Chinook salmon by addressing important data gaps for managers and informing habitat restoration efforts.
Under permit 28055 the Gold Ridge Resource Conservation District (GRCD) is seeking a new permit that would authorize them to take juvenile and adult CC Chinook salmon, CCC coho salmon, and CCC steelhead in order to document the status and trends of salmonid populations in watersheds of the Sonoma Coast. This work will be conducted in the Bodega Bay and Russian River basins in coastal California.
Juveniles would be collected via backpack electrofishing, hook and line angling, hand or dip net, beach seine, minnow trap, and funnel or pipe trap. Juvenile fish would be captured, handled (anesthetized, weighed, measured, and checked for marks or tags), and released. A subsample of captured juveniles would also be tissue sampled and PIT-tagged prior to release. Adults are not being targeted during this work, but some may be unintentionally collected via funnel or pipe trap or encountered during electrofishing. Captured adults would be handled (weighed, measured, and checked for marks or tags), and released. Spawned adults or post-spawn carcasses would be enumerated via spawning surveys, and tissues may be collected from carcasses encountered during spawning surveys. Adult and juvenile fish would be observed during snorkel surveys. The researchers are not proposing to kill any of the listed fish being captured, but a small number of fish may be killed as an inadvertent result of these activities.
The goals of the restoration projects conducted by the GRCD are collectively to improve watershed health and resiliency for the benefit of salmonids, and these studies are intended to improve understanding of restoration needs by addressing information gaps about the current status of salmonid species in the targeted watersheds. This work is expected to benefit ESA-listed salmon and steelhead by providing information on the status and trends of their populations, and their contributions to broader ESUs, which can be used to better inform ESA-listed species management and restoration efforts.
Under permit 28158 the Northwest Straits Foundation is seeking a new permit that would authorize them to take juvenile PS Chinook salmon and PS steelhead and adult southern DPS eulachon in order to evaluate the impact of shoreline armoring removal, beach nourishment, vegetation enhancement and toxic cleanup restoration efforts on nearshore fish habitat use. This work would take place in Bowman Bay, Cornet Bay, and Fidalgo Bay in Skagit County and Island County in the state of Washington.
Juvenile salmon and steelhead and adult eulachon would be collected via beach seining. Fish would be captured, handled (identified, weighed, measured, and checked for marks or tags), and released. The researchers are not proposing to kill any of the listed fish being captured, but a small number of fish may be killed as an inadvertent result of these activities.
The purpose of the restoration projects managed by the Northwest Straits Foundation is to restore and enhance habitat for nearshore wildlife, including migrating salmon and their prey species. These restoration efforts are expected to benefit rearing PS Chinook and steelhead, and this pre- and post-construction monitoring work will increase the likelihood the restoration projects will be designed and managed to provide the expected habitat benefits.
Under permit 28199 the California State Polytechnic University Humboldt (Cal Poly Humboldt) is seeking a new permit that would authorize them to take adult SONCC coho salmon, NC steelhead, CC Chinook salmon, and SDPS green sturgeon in order to assess the presence, distribution, migration, habitat preferences, and movement patterns of sub-adult and adult green sturgeon. This work would take place in Humboldt Bay, Arcata Bay, Mad River Slough and Mad River Estuary in Humboldt and Del Norte Counties, in California.
Adults of all fish species would be collected via hook and line angling. This study is not targeting salmon or steelhead, so any CCC coho salmon, CC Chinook salmon, or NC steelhead captured would be immediately released. Captured adult green sturgeon would be handled (weighed, measured, and checked for marks or tags), tissue sampled and tagged with pop-up satellite archival tags prior to release. Adults would also be visually observed through vessel surveys and aerial surveys, including the use of cameras attached to aerial drones. The researchers are not proposing to kill any of the listed fish being captured, and do not anticipate any will be killed as an inadvertent result of these activities.
The purpose of this study is to assess the presence, distribution, and migration patterns of sub-adult and adult SDPS green sturgeon in Humboldt and Del Norte County, describe the habitat preferences, identify potential congregation sites, and evaluate individual movement patterns and their correlation with environmental variables. This work is expected to benefit ESA-listed SDPS green sturgeon by addressing current data gaps about distribution and habitat use, providing managers information necessary to evaluate how the species may be affected by future actions that would impact these bay and estuary habitats.
Under permit 28292, the City of Portland is seeking a permit that would authorize them to take adult LCR Chinook salmon, LCR coho salmon, LCR steelhead, UWR Chinook salmon, and UWR steelhead while conducting a study to determine the levels of contamination in resident fish tissue and to continue documenting how tissue contamination levels are changing over the long term in the Columbia Slough. This work will be conducted within the lower Willamette River in Multnomah County, Oregon.
Juveniles and adults may be collected via boat electrofishing, and would be captured, handled, and released. ESA-listed fish are not being targeted for this study, but some may be unintentionally captured while targeting resident fish. In some cases, the researchers may not actually capture any fish but would merely note their presence, however electrofishing where listed species are observed would still be reported as take. The researchers are not proposing to kill any listed fish, but a small number of fish may be killed as an inadvertent result of these activities.
The purpose of this work is to assess whether or not upland source control actions are reducing toxic loads in fish tissue over time. This study is expected to benefit ESA-listed salmon and steelhead by providing data that will guide programmatic and risk management decisions in contaminated urban waterways and thereby reduce contaminant exposure and uptake in resident and migrating fish in the lower Willamette River over time.
This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(c) of the ESA. NMFS will evaluate the applications, associated documents, and comments submitted to determine whether the applications meet the requirements of section 10(a) of the ESA and Federal regulations. The final permit decisions will not be made until after the end of the 30-day comment period. NMFS will publish notice of its final action in the Federal Register .
Dated: August 1, 2024.
Angela Somma,
Chief, Endangered Species Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[ FR Doc. 2024-17410 Filed 8-7-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
Information.
IMAGES
COMMENTS
One in seven species of deepwater sharks and rays is threatened with extinction because of the liver oil and meat trade and emerging fishing technologies that make it possible to catch deep-sea ...
Null modeling results and endangered species richness within the USA. (a) Difference between the current number of endangered species with any part of their range inside highly protected areas and ...
The Endangered Species Act requires that every U.S. plant and animal be saved from extinction, but after 50 years, we have to do much more to prevent a biodiversity crisis. By Robert Kunzig. Snail ...
An endangered species is a type of organism that is threatened by extinction. Species become endangered for two main reasons: loss of habitat and loss of genetic variation. ... The Charles Darwin Research Station, a scientific facility in the Galapagos, offered a $10,000 reward to any zoo or individual for locating a single Pinta Island ...
Established in 1964, The International Union for Conservation of Nature's Red List of Threatened Species has evolved to become the world's most comprehensive information source on the global conservation status of animal, fungi and plant species. The IUCN Red List is a critical indicator of the health of the world's biodiversity. Far more than a list of species and their status, it is a ...
To date, 588 sites encompassing 920 threatened species of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, conifers and corals have been identified. The goal of such efforts is to prevent the most imminent ...
An increasing number of researchers is turning to artificial intelligence (AI) to monitor biodiversity and bolster efforts to help endangered species. Unlike conventional methods that can disrupt ...
Editor's choice: threatened species. Biodiversity is in crisis and according to some estimates tens of thousands of species disappear every year. Many others are on the verge of extinction. We can ...
Abstract. Adaptive management is a powerful means of learning about complex ecosystems, but is rarely used for recovering endangered species. Here, we demonstrate how it can benefit woodland caribou, which became the first large mammal extirpated from the contiguous United States in recent history.
A value of +1 means an improvement of one class, e.g. from Endangered to Vulnerable; scores sum changes across all species that occur in a region. (c) Final 'best-fitted' models using global, regional or regional conservation-related publications to represent scientific research effort. ... To explore the relationship between scientific ...
Introduction. Accelerating rates of species extinction are a matter of global concern [] as exemplified in the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) report that predicted the loss of over 1 million species in the foreseeable future, which will also have significant impacts on the delivery of ecosystem services [].
The Endangered Species Program Web site, maintained by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, provides a list of the species recognized as endangered in the United States. For most endangered species, species accounts provide descriptions and illustrations. Species accounts for bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and Alabama canebrake ...
First, supporting previous criticisms on the biases in research on endangered species (Bland et al., 2015; Kindsvater et al., 2018), our study suggests that scientists tend to focus research attention on large, popular, and better-funded species regardless of how large or small the species' range is or how long it has been listed as endangered ...
The U.S. Endangered Species Act is one of the strongest laws of any nation for preventing species extinction, but quantifying the Act's effectiveness has proven difficult. To provide one measure of effectiveness, we identified listed species that have gone extinct and used previously developed methods to update an estimate of the number of ...
ESR supports the "Principles for the socially responsible use of conservation monitoring technologies" and encourages all authors of relevant research to follow the related best-practices steps. Details have been added to the Manuscript tab of the author guidelines. Latest ESR volume. Submit your manuscript.
Example of the benefit of optimal allocation. At an annual budget of $150 million (dashed line A), inefficient allocation of resources would recover about 104 species, whereas an optimal allocation is predicted to recover 1168 species. When annual funding is doubled to $300 million (dotted line B), the number of species recovered under the ...
1. Introduction. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is among the nation's most important and powerful environmental laws. It is also "one of the most contentious of our federal environmental laws" (Bean 2009, 369).The listing of individual species, the designation of critical habitat, and the implementation of conservation measures often prompt fierce legal and political battles.
Throughout its history, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) has proven to be incredibly effective in stabilizing populations of species at risk, preventing the extinction of many others, and conserving the habitats upon which they depend. All Americans can take pride in the fact that, under the protection of the ESA, the California condor, grizzly ...
Spending by North American zoos and aquariums on conservation projects for species listed under the Endangered Species Act, as reported in the 2013-2015 Annual Report on Conservation and Science ...
Macaques, along with species including mice, rats, pigs, and birds, are subjected to cruel experimentation despite scientific research that reveals subtle nuances in physiology, biochemistry, and genetic expression drive misleading drug development. In fact, between 90—95 percent of drugs found safe and effective in animal tests fail during ...
Directed Take. For scientific purposes—these are permits for research to study species listed under the Endangered Species Act.Examples include permits for someone studying endangered salmon in California or the health of sea turtles off Florida. Some researchers have permits to import samples of endangered species to study genetics.
A group of scientists has devised a plan to safeguard Earth's species in a cryogenic biorepository on the moon.. Intended to save species in the event of a disaster on Earth, the plan makes use ...
The end goal of many SSPs is the reintroduction of captive-raised endangered species into their native wild habitats. According to the AZA, SSPs and related programs have helped bring black-footed ...
The nucleotide diversity of the sampled populations ranged from 0.00096 to 0.00138, which is lower than that observed in several other PSESP and endangered tree species. Bayesian unsupervised clustering, principal component analysis, and NJ tree reconstruction identified 3 to 5 genetic clusters in H. hainanensis, most of which were ...
"The Blue-crowned Laughingthrush is a critically endangered bird species which has shown altered nesting behaviours due to disturbances from photographers," Associate Professor Bateman said.
Notice is hereby given that NMFS has received 21 scientific research permit application requests relating to Pacific salmon, steelhead, green sturgeon, rockfish, and eulachon. The proposed research is intended to increase knowledge of species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and to help guide management and conservation efforts. DATES: