RoJo is exactly correct. The difference between a bi-op and a recovery plan is important, and is often mistaken.

But to answer Carcassman's question, yes the recovery plans must have biological criteria that, when met, would signal that the stocks have reached recovery. However, they likely don't include detailed information on how to get there, such as levels of incidental harvest (Indeed, alot of the harvest of Puget Sound Chinook is incidental harvest directed at other, more abundant stocks, including hatchery fish.) The criteria are endpoints, but there are many pathways to arrive at those endpoints, any of which may be successful.

For example, we might be able to reach recovery thru a single action, such as eliminating all harvest (from Puget Sound to Alaska and back again). But that's not realistic. We might be able to reach recovery by completely restoring all available habitat. But that's not realistic either, given current and expected population growth. It's more realistic that recovery will be achieved by a combination of all factors that affect the stocks. But who goes first? Ideally, everyone. But that doesn't happen often.