[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 118 (Monday, June 20, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 35755-35771]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-15080]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 223

[Docket No. 110531311-1310-02]
RIN 0648-XA407


Listing Endangered and Threatened Species: Threatened Status for 
the Oregon Coast Coho Salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), issue a 
final determination to retain the threatened listing for the Oregon 
Coast (OC) Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) of coho salmon 
(Oncorhynchus kisutch) under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This 
listing determination will supersede our February 11, 2008, listing 
determination for this ESU. Our February 11, 2008, determinations 
establishing protective regulations under ESA section 4(d) and 
designating critical habitat for this ESU remain in effect.

DATES: Effective June 20, 2011.

ADDRESSES: NMFS, Protected Resources Division, 1201 NE., Lloyd Blvd., 
Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97232.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Murray at the address above or at 
(503) 231-2378, or Marta Nammack, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, 
(301) 713-1401. The final rule, references and other materials relating 
to this determination can be found on our Web site at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov or by contacting us at the address above.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We first proposed to list the OC coho salmon 
ESU as threatened under the ESA in 1995 (60 FR 38011; July 25, 1995). 
Since then, we have completed several status reviews for this species, 
and its listing classification has changed between threatened and not 
warranted for listing a number of times. The ESA listing status of the 
OC coho salmon ESU has been controversial and has attracted litigation 
in the past. A complete history of this ESU's listing status can be 
found in our May 26, 2010, proposal to retain the threatened listing 
for this ESU (75 FR 29489). As part of a legal settlement agreement in 
2008, we committed to complete a new status review for this ESU.
    The steps we follow when evaluating whether a species should be 
listed under the ESA are to: (1) Delineate the species under 
consideration; (2) review the status of the species; (3) consider the 
ESA section 4(a)(1) factors to identify threats facing the species; (4) 
assess whether certain protective efforts mitigate these threats; and 
(5) evaluate and assess the likelihood of the species' future 
persistence. We provide more detailed information and findings 
regarding each of these steps later in this final rule.
    To aid us in the status review, we convened a team of Federal 
scientists, known as a biological review team (BRT). The BRT for this 
OC coho salmon ESU status review was composed of scientists from our 
Northwest and Southwest Fisheries Science Centers and the USDA Forest 
Service. As part of its evaluation, the BRT considered ESU boundaries, 
membership of fish from hatchery programs within the ESU, the risk of 
extinction of the ESU, and threats facing this ESU. The BRT evaluated 
the best available information on ESU viability criteria (abundance, 
ESU productivity, spatial structure, and diversity). It also considered 
factors affecting ESU viability, including marine survival, trends in 
freshwater habitat complexity, and potential effects of global climate 
change. It considered the work products of the Oregon/Northern 
California Coast Technical Recovery Team and information

[[Page 35756]]

submitted by the public, State agencies, and other Federal agencies.
    We asked the BRT to assess the level of extinction risk facing the 
species, describing its confidence that the species is at high risk, 
moderate risk, or neither. We described a species with high risk as one 
that is at or near a level of abundance, productivity, and/or spatial 
structure that places its persistence in question. We described a 
species at moderate risk as one that exhibits a trajectory indicating 
that it is more likely than not to be at a high level of extinction 
risk in the foreseeable future, with the appropriate time horizon 
depending on the nature of the threats facing the species and the 
species' life history characteristics. The preliminary report of the 
BRT deliberations (Stout et al., 2010) describes OC coho salmon biology 
and assesses demographic risks, threats, and overall extinction risk.
    On May 26, 2010, we announced completion of the status review and a 
proposal to retain the threatened listing for this ESU (75 FR 29489). 
We solicited comments and suggestions from all interested parties 
including the public, other governmental agencies, the scientific 
community, industry, and environmental groups. Specifically, we 
requested information regarding: (1) Assessment methods to determine 
this ESU's viability; (2) this ESU's abundance, productivity, spatial 
structure, or diversity; (3) efforts being made to protect this ESU or 
its habitat; (4) threats to this ESU; and (5) changes to the condition 
or quantity of this ESU's habitat.

Summary of Comments Received in Response to the Proposed Rule

    We solicited public comment on the proposed listing of the OC coho 
salmon ESU for a total of 60 days. We did not receive a request for, 
nor did we hold, a public hearing on the proposal. Public comments were 
received from 8 commenters, and copies of all public comments received 
are available online at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;dct=FR+PR+N+O+SR+PS;rpp=10;so=DESC;sb=postedDate;po=0;D=N
OAA-NMFS-2010-0112.
    Several commenters stated that they were in favor of retaining the 
threatened listing for this ESU but did not present any specific 
information to support their position. Summaries of the substantive 
comments received, and our responses, are provided below, organized by 
category.
    In December 2004, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued 
a Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review establishing 
minimum peer review standards, a transparent process for public 
disclosure, and opportunities for public input. In accordance with this 
guidance, we solicited technical review of the preliminary status 
report (Stout et al., 2010) from nine independent experts selected from 
the academic and scientific community. Each reviewer is an expert in 
either salmon biology, fish risk assessment methodology, ocean/salmon 
ecology, climate trend assessment, or landscape-scale habitat 
assessment. Eight reviewers responded to our request.
    After considering the information provided during the public 
comment period and by peer reviewers, the BRT prepared a final report 
(Stout et al., 2011). In preparing its final report, the BRT also 
considered some new scientific information that became available since 
the issuance of its preliminary report.

Response to Comments

    There was substantial overlap between the comments from the peer 
reviewers and the substantive public comments. The comments were 
sufficiently similar to warrant a response to the peer reviewer's 
comments through our general responses below. The Oregon Department of 
Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) provided the most substantial technical 
comments. In the Pacific Northwest, there is unique co-management of 
salmon and their habitat shared by Federal and State agencies and 
tribes. Due to this shared management, we specifically identify ODFW's 
comments in the following section. Other individuals, agencies, and 
organizations who submitted comments during the public comment period 
are identified as ``commenters,'' while peer reviewers are referred to 
a ``reviewers.''

Productivity Trends

    Comment 1: ODFW stated ``* * * the BRT makes generalizations 
regarding trends in coho salmon productivity that are not consistent 
with patterns of productivity observed over the last twelve years.''
    Response: After reviewing its report in response to ODFW's 
comments, the BRT revised the ``Current Biological Status'' section 
extensively to add clarity and better support for their findings. In 
particular, they added additional information on the historical 
abundance of the ESU and 20th century trends in two measures of 
productivity: Pre-harvest recruits per spawner and the natural return 
ratio. The BRT concluded that there clearly has been a long-term 
decline in recruits per spawner during the 20th century, consistent 
with what has been found in previous status reviews (Weikamp et al., 
1995; Good et al., 2005). The BRT found no evidence that this decline 
has reversed. In fact, recruits from the return years 1997-1999 failed 
to replace parental spawners: A recruitment failure occurred in all 
three brood cycles even before accounting for harvest-related 
mortalities. This was the first time this had happened since data 
collection began in the 1950s. In most years since 2000, improved 
marine survival and higher rainfall are thought to be factors that have 
contributed to a recent upswing in recruits. However, in the return 
years 2005, 2006, and 2007, recruits again failed to replace parental 
spawners. The BRT discussed several possible explanations for this 
recruitment failure, including the possibility that the higher spawning 
abundance levels in recent years have reached the current carrying 
capacity of the degraded freshwater environment. In addition, the BRT 
noted that while total spawning abundance has been at its highest level 
since the 1950s, the total numbers of recruits remain lower than in the 
1950s-1970s. The BRT therefore concluded that with the current 
freshwater habitat conditions, the ability of the OC Coho Salmon ESU to 
survive another prolonged period of poor marine survival remains in 
question.

Persistence Analysis

    Comment 2: ODFW stated ``In summary, we believe that the use of 
peak count data fundamentally altered the results of the Decision 
Support System (DSS) analysis. In addition, we believe that negative 
depensatory effects on coastal coho [are] extremely unlikely based on 
experience with other populations and because of the lack of any 
evidence of such effects in the Life Cycle basins or at the population 
scale.''
    Response: The BRT's initial report (Stout et al., 2010) noted that 
the OC coho salmon Technical Recovery Team's report (Wainwright et al., 
2008) analyzed the critical abundance criterion using incorrect data. 
In particular, the Technical Recovery Team report specifically states 
that this criterion should be evaluated using peak count data, but 
inadvertently used area under the curve data. The BRT discovered this 
discrepancy when rerunning the DSS for the BRT's analysis. The analysis 
found in the BRT's initial report (Stout et al., 2010) is therefore a 
correction, not a change. Stated differently, the Technical Recovery 
Team and the BRT both

[[Page 35757]]

intended to use peak counts as the selected measure of spawner 
abundance in the DSS analysis; the use of area under the curve data in 
the Technical Recovery Team's report was a mistake, later corrected in 
the BRT's initial report (Stout et al., 2010).
    Comment 3: One commenter took issue with the BRT's consideration of 
depensation as risk based on the spawner density levels found in the 
North Umpqua River from 1946-2009.
    Response: The spawner density levels cited by the commenter were 
influenced by hatchery returns, which makes it impossible to assess the 
response of the natural component of that population to low abundance 
events.
    Comment 4: One commenter stated that the model results do not 
reflect actual production. The commenter contended that the BRT changed 
the DSS and eliminated the population functionality criterion from the 
results.
    Response: This appears to be a misunderstanding of the BRT's 
report. The BRT included the population functionality criterion in the 
DSS. It did, however, discuss the need to reconsider this criterion in 
the future. In addition, the BRT did not rely solely on the DSS in its 
deliberations, but considered other factors and sources of information 
in reaching its final risk conclusions.
    Comment 5: One commenter stated that the BRT arbitrarily changed 
the population assessment model metric for spawner density. The 
commenter contended that peak count data was arbitrarily used instead 
of area under the curve data in running the DSS analyses. The commenter 
stated that the use of area-under-the-curve counts is more commonly 
accepted in the fisheries profession. The commenter also contended that 
observer bias was not accounted for in data sets used in the BRT 
analyses.
    Response: As discussed in our response to Comment 2, the Technical 
Recovery Team and the BRT both intended to use peak counts as the 
selected measure of spawner abundance in the DSS analysis. The use of 
area under the curve data in the Technical Recovery Team's report was a 
mistake, later corrected in the BRT's initial report (Stout et al., 
2010). The BRT note that the use of peak count data is well documented 
in the fishery management literature and cite several studies 
supporting the use of peak counts to assess salmon spawner abundance. 
Regarding observer bias, the data set obtained from the ODFW, and used 
in the DSS, was corrected for observer bias.
    Comment 6: One commenter noted that persistence and sustainability 
of the North Umpqua populations of OC coho salmon is well documented. 
The commenter suggested that the BRT look to the historical record for 
evidence of the wide variation of habitat and climatic conditions under 
which this population has persisted.
    Response: The BRT found that the North Umpqua population 
persistence and sustainability is confounded by high hatchery 
production in the recent past, and the Technical Recovery Team's 
productivity analysis takes that into account. That hatchery program 
has recently been terminated, so future analyses will be better able to 
assess the sustainability of the North Umpqua population. With respect 
to the historical record, the BRT did examine the historical record and 
recognized that there are strong climate driven fluctuations in OC coho 
salmon abundance and productivity. The BRT risk assessment and 
Technical Recovery Team criteria account for these fluctuations.
    Comment 7: One commenter suggested that the BRT selected 
unscientific and untested methodologies to support continued listing of 
the ESU in their assessment.
    Response: The BRT used the best available scientific information, 
including information submitted by the commenter. The overall 
methodology for conducting the status review was the same as NMFS has 
used for many past salmon status reviews and as such it has received 
extensive scientific review. The BRT also used specific methods and 
analyses developed by the Oregon/Northern California Coast Technical 
Recovery Team. The Technical Recovery Team consisted of a range of 
experts from NMFS, ODFW, USDA Forest Service, tribes and independent 
consultants. The tools and methods it developed reflect that expertise. 
Both the Technical Recovery Team and BRT reports received extensive 
peer review that supported the models and analyses.
    Comment 8: One commenter stated ``The spawning habitat within the 
Umpqua River Basin is comprised of 409 miles in the Lower Umpqua and 
Smith River (Lower Umpqua); 433 miles in the upper main stem Umpqua 
including the Elk and Calapooya and other tributaries (Middle Umpqua); 
656 miles in the South Umpqua basin including 131 miles in Cow Creek 
(South Umpqua); and 126 miles in the North Umpqua (North Umpqua). The 
wide distribution of habitat and spawning populations within the basin 
serves as an effective built-in protective mechanism against any one 
catastrophic event resulting in the extinction of the species.''
    Response: We agree diversity and spatial structure are important 
factors to consider in evaluating extinction risk, and these factors 
were explicitly evaluated by the BRT and discussed in its report. In 
addition, the DSS developed by the Technical Recovery Team uses this 
type of information in its diversity/spatial structure criteria. 
Specifically, the DSS watershed-level criteria account for the 
occupancy of both adult spawners and juvenile OC coho salmon in the 
basins throughout the range of this ESU.
    Comment 9: One reviewer noted that it would be useful and 
informative to include a master table or appendix in the BRT report 
that clearly listed the metrics and associated data sets that were 
incorporated into the DSS and the criteria to which they were applied.
    Response: We agree. The BRT included this type of information in 
Appendix A of its final report (Stout et al., 2011).
    Comment 10: One commenter stated that viability models for 
predicting fisheries' responses to management or environmental changes 
are in relatively early stages of development and involve considerable 
uncertainty.
    Response: We agree, and the BRT stated that there is significant 
uncertainty in the long term projections it considered. This is why the 
BRT considered many aspects of OC coho salmon ecology in assessing 
status and used a variety of information (population viability 
modeling, the Technical Recovery Team's DSS, habitat assessments, 
climate assessments, assessment of other threats) in conducting its 
assessment. The BRT also was careful to characterize the degree of 
certainty of its conclusions, and this was extensively discussed in 
both its preliminary and final reports.

Climate Change and Stream Temperatures

    Comment 11: One reviewer provided suggestions for adding and 
changing climate change text, and adding information from four 
additional scientific articles. This reviewer is a recognized expert on 
global climate change and had a number of technical suggestions 
regarding the BRT analysis of effect of climate change on OC coho 
salmon and their habitat. His comments included discussion, suggestion, 
and additional references for the following climate related impacts: 
(1) Possible changes in ocean conditions and subsequent changes in 
marine ecosystem function, (2) possible changes in stream flow and 
temperature in the Pacific Northwest, and (3) possible

[[Page 35758]]

changes in Cascade Mountain snowpack.
    Response: The BRT reviewed the suggested articles and revised the 
``Effects on Climate Change'' section of the final report to reflect 
this new information. The reviewer's comments allowed the BRT to adjust 
its analysis to reflect the most recent research and latest theories on 
the potential effects of climate change on salmon and their habitat. 
Although it was able to update this section of its report, the BRT 
conclusions regarding climate change remained fundamentally unaltered 
by the addition of the new information.
    Comment 12: One reviewer stated ``The inclusion of the potential 
impacts of climate change on coho habitat was helpful, as was the 
inclusion of other factors (e.g., human population growth and land use 
conversions) that will be likely to cause problems for the species. 
Given the overwhelmingly strong scientific evidence for climate change 
and the near certainty of population growth and land conversion along 
the Oregon coast--all of which have major implications for habitat 
quality--it would have been imprudent to ignore these factors. 
Additionally, it is quite probable that there will be interactions 
among these factors, many unforeseen at present, which could exacerbate 
habitat loss.''
    Response: The BRT carefully evaluated these threats before reaching 
its conclusion. The BRT noted in its conclusion that ``Finally, the BRT 
was also concerned that global climate change will lead to a long-term 
downward trend in both freshwater and marine coho salmon habitat 
compared to current conditions (see Climate section and Wainwright and 
Weitkamp, in review). There was considerable uncertainty about the 
magnitude of most of the specific effects climate change will have on 
salmon habitat, but the BRT was concerned that most changes associated 
with climate change are expected to result in poorer and more variable 
habitat conditions for OC coho salmon than exist currently. Some 
members of the BRT noted that changes in freshwater flow patterns as a 
result of climate change may not be as severe in the Oregon coast as in 
other parts of the Pacific Northwest, while others were concerned by 
recent observations of extremely poor marine survival rates for several 
West Coast salmon populations. The distribution of the BRT's overall 
risk scores reflects some of this uncertainty.'' The risks posed by 
climate change, poor marine conditions, and further human development 
in the area were key factors in reaching our conclusion to retain the 
threatened listing for this ESU.
    Comment 13: One reviewer stated ``I work a lot on impacts of 
temperature on salmonids and was hoping to see a bit more than a 
paragraph on the issue * * * Perhaps a sentence or two emphasizing the 
primacy of temperature as a component of habitat and threat to salmon--
I believe temperature is the 1 source of water quality 
impairment in Oregon.''
    Response: We agree that more information on the effects of elevated 
stream temperatures would improve the BRT report. Additional 
information on elevated stream temperature and its potential effect on 
OC coho salmon was added to the ``Water Quality Degradation,'' 
``Climate Change,'' ``Water availability,'' and ``Forest and 
Agricultural Conversion'' sections of the BRT report.
    Comment 14: One commenter stated ``Not only are we concerned that 
the current BRT assessment does not reflect the true viability risk as 
evidenced by the quantitative data that is available for the 
independent populations, we are also concerned that the BRT has adopted 
a new and untested qualitative prediction of climatic conditions for 
the next 100 years that also has a significantly high uncertainty of 
accuracy. Unfortunately, as with the other models the BRT did not test 
these predictive climatic models utilizing the long term data sets that 
were available. In this case historic climatic records illustrate the 
coho evolved under a high range of climatic fluctuations--fluctuations 
which can be expected to occur in the future as well.''
    Response: The BRT addressed the risks related to climate change 
using the best available scientific information, including a detailed 
review of available published, peer-reviewed literature relating to 
recent and future climate change in the Pacific Northwest and the 
likely effects of such change on OC coho salmon. The BRT is aware of 
past and likely future trends and fluctuations in the local climate, 
and took those trends and fluctuations into account in the analysis. 
The BRT noted that there is a great deal of uncertainty surrounding the 
effects of future climate on OC coho salmon ESU, and took that 
uncertainty into account as a contributing risk factor. Much of the 
BRT's climate analysis does rely on predictive climate models that have 
been tested against long-term climate data. The BRT did not conduct its 
own assessment of the accuracy of these models, but rather relied on a 
large body of peer-reviewed scientific literature that has reported 
such assessments.

Assessment of Habitat Trends

    Comment 15: The ODFW's comments contained a number of technical 
questions and observations regarding the BRTs assessment of stream 
habitat trends. ODFW commented it was concerned that the BRT placed too 
much emphasis on a Bayesian analysis of habitat trends that used a 
small subset of the available data. It stated that the use of the ODFW 
Habitat Limiting Factors Model may also be inappropriate, particularly 
when applied to the full range of streams within the ESU. It also noted 
that the BRT report did not contain a full description of the Aquatic 
and Riparian Effectiveness Monitoring Program (AREMP) (Reeves et. al 
(2004), although data generated by this program played a key role in 
habitat modeling exercise.
    Response: Scientists from our Northwest Fisheries Science Center 
and ODFW formed a working group to resolve these issues. In its 
comments, ODFW noted that the BRT's habitat analysis used a small 
subset of the available data. It also stated that the BRT's initial 
report contained insufficient explanation of the methodology used to 
carry out the habitat trend analysis. The group held several meetings 
to discuss appropriate analyses, data sets, data transforms, etc. The 
BRT's final report (specifically the In-Channel Stream Complexity 
section) was revised to reflect the progress the group made in 
resolving these technical issues. This issue is discussed in detail in 
the New Habitat Trend Analysis section, below.
    Comment 16: One reviewer stated ``I think the conclusion here about 
complexity (rate of continued disturbance outpacing restoration) is 
likely correct, but we don't know for sure. Local ``active'' 
restoration activities are likely dwarfed by the larger human footprint 
on the landscape, but passive efforts to restore landscape condition 
(e.g., improved forest harvest practices) will likely take decades to 
yield detectable positive trends. Might be worth clarifying the issue 
here because passive restoration is much more likely to have longer 
term and much more widespread benefits in the future.''
    Response: We generally agree and a short clarification of this 
issue is now included in the BRT report's ``Stream Habitat Complexity 
Summary'' section. Managing watersheds in a manner that allows for 
natural habitat forming processes to occur is the first step in 
ensuring that OC coho salmon have suitable freshwater habitat. However, 
we also acknowledge that active

[[Page 35759]]

restoration is a key part of an overall strategy to improve stream 
habitat across the range of this ESU. Active restoration is often the 
fastest way to address certain reach-level concerns such as lack of 
instream woody debris or lack of riparian vegetation.

Fish Passage

    Comment 17: ODFW commented that fish passage issues facing the OC 
coho salmon ESU are complex and may require additional analysis.
    Response: We agree that attempting to analyze fish passage in 
streams across the range of this ESU is a complex task. ODFW provided 
several additional sources of information regarding fish passage. The 
BRT updated its report to reflect this new information. The BRT also 
considered a new data set on fish passage, the Oregon Fish Passage 
Barrier Data Set (OFPDS, 2009). Although this data set represents the 
most up-to-date catalog of fish passage blockages throughout the range 
of this ESU, it still does not account for some blockages on private 
land and certain types of blockages including berms and levees (Stout 
et al., 2011). Berms and levees are common in lowland and estuary 
habitat that can be important coho salmon rearing habitat. The BRT 
concluded that fish passage blockages are a source of substantial 
uncertainty as to the true effect that fish passage barriers present to 
OC coho salmon.
    Comment 18: One reviewer noted that ``Conclusions quoted regarding 
present impacts of hydropower should be expanded to consider future 
development as well. I know there are possible plans for hydroelectric 
dams to be placed in some coastal rivers, such as the Siletz River near 
the former town site of Valsetz. Also the development of small hydro 
may come into play in the future as the region develops alternative 
energy sources. This is becoming an issue in other parts of western 
North America (e.g., British Columbia).''
    Response: We agree that future hydropower development could affect 
OC coho salmon in certain areas. The BRT made a slight modification to 
its report to reflect this. There are, however, numerous protective 
measures in place to assure that future hydropower projects would be 
developed in a manner that reduces potential effects on this ESU. For 
instance, all hydropower projects in the State of Oregon must have a 
water right issued by the Oregon Water Resources Department. Most 
significant non-Federal hydropower facilities would need to be licensed 
by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. During these regulatory 
processes, we expect the addition of conservation measures/project 
modifications designed to reduce the project's effects on OC coho 
salmon and their habitat. Although we cannot predict, with certainty, 
what those specific protective measures might be, it is reasonable to 
conclude that major adverse effects on this ESU would be avoided. For 
instance, it is unlikely, although not completely impossible, that the 
construction of hydropower facilities would be authorized in cases 
where a large amount of OC coho salmon habitat would be blocked. 
Currently, it is far more common in the Pacific Northwest for dams to 
be removed to restore fish passage (e.g., Marmot Dam, Elwha Dam) than 
for new dams to be constructed that would block fish passage. For these 
reasons, we do not expect development of new hydropower facilities to 
pose a serious threat to this ESU.
    Comment 19: One reviewer provided a copy of a recent report (Bass, 
2010) providing information on juvenile coho salmon movement and 
migration through tide gates.
    Response: The BRT considered the information in the report and 
revised the content of the final report accordingly. The BRT noted that 
at a minimum, tide gates in the OC coho salmon ESU act as partial 
barriers to fish passage and were, for the most part, unaccounted for 
in past analyses. It also notes that fish passage barriers have not 
been identified as a major limiting factor for OC coho salmon in 
previous assessments conducted by ODFW; however, a great deal of 
uncertainty exists about the total number of passage barriers 
throughout the range of this ESU.

Estuaries/Wetland Life History Diversity

    Comment 20: ODFW submitted a number of technical comments regarding 
the BRT's conclusions about the importance of estuaries to OC coho 
salmon. In summary, ODFW felt that the importance of estuaries to OC 
coho salmon is somewhat unknown. They questioned whether the BRT may 
have overstated the degree to which the loss of estuary habitat is a 
limiting factor for this ESU. ODFW noted that the Oregon Watershed 
Enhancement Board has funded a substantial amount of estuary 
restoration over the last several years. It also provided additional 
information about the role estuaries may play in the life cycle of OC 
coho salmon.
    Response: Both the BRT and ODFW are in agreement that there has 
been significant loss of estuary habitat along the Oregon Coast during 
the last 100 years. We acknowledge that there is some scientific 
disagreement between ODFW and the BRT regarding the severity of the 
effect of estuary loss on the viability of the OC coho salmon ESU. 
However, the loss of estuary habitat is only one of many factors 
affecting the viability of this ESU. In its risk conclusion, the BRT 
did not specifically identify estuary loss as one of the primary 
sources of risk to this ESU. Even if the BRT were to adopt ODFW's 
position on the effect of estuary loss on the viability of this ESU, it 
would be unlikely to change the outcome of its overall risk assessment.
    Comment 21: In contrast to the previous comment, a reviewer stated 
that ``the emphasis given to the importance of estuarine habitat is 
moderate and adequate given the information available in the 
literature.'' The reviewer noted observing juvenile OC coho salmon 
rearing in estuaries and feels that this life history strategy is 
fairly common. The reviewer also provided some specific scientific 
information to support this statement.
    Response: This viewpoint is consistent with the BRT's position on 
the importance of estuaries to juvenile OC coho salmon. The BRT revised 
its report's section on estuaries to include the information provided 
by the reviewer.
    Comment 22: One reviewer suggested that a somewhat broader 
definition of `life history' in the glossary may be useful. The 
reviewer noted that a `life history' encompasses changes experienced 
from birth through death, including variation in life history traits, 
such as the size and age at maturity and fecundity. The reviewer argued 
that traits such as juvenile growth rate and age at ocean emigration 
are aspects of species' life history.
    Response: We agree and the BRT modified its definition of ``life 
history'' as suggested.

Restoration

    Comment 23: The ODFW and Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board 
commented that in our proposed rule, we underestimated the variety and 
effectiveness of habitat and watershed process restoration efforts. 
ODFW also stated that we did not consider the information contained in 
an effectiveness monitoring report demonstrating the results of several 
projects designed to increase the amount of woody debris in stream 
reaches.
    Response: In the BRT report and proposed rule, we stated that an 
analysis conducted by the BRT showed that habitat restoration efforts 
are not well matched with habitat limiting factors in some areas 
including the

[[Page 35760]]

Umpqua Basin. The comments submitted by ODFW contained a number of 
technical points regarding our statements about restoration efforts 
matching restoration needs. After reviewing these comments, we decided 
that the BRT habitat restoration analysis needed further consideration. 
We decided not to consider the results of the BRT's analysis when we 
evaluated efforts being made to protect the OC coho salmon ESU. 
Instead, we acknowledge that a number of restoration projects are 
occurring throughout the range of this ESU, and we expect that they 
will have benefits to ESU viability some time in the future. However, 
we do not have information available that would allow us to predict or 
quantify these future improvements to ESU viability. Similarly, we 
acknowledge that the information submitted by ODFW demonstrates that 
restoration efforts can increase the amount of woody debris in stream 
reaches and improve habitat complexity. We also agree with ODFW that 
these improvements are likely to lead to improved survival of OC coho 
salmon juveniles. However, these improvements will occur primarily at a 
stream-reach scale (several hundred to several thousand meters 
maximum). There is currently a lack of scientific information that 
would allow us to scale the positive collective effects of multiple 
restoration projects up to the population, strata, or ESU level. We are 
working with ODFW and our other Federal, State, and tribal co-managers 
to develop monitoring programs and databases that would assist us in 
developing these types of analyses in the future.
    Even when this information becomes available, we have reason to 
believe that relying on active restoration to mitigate for the effects 
of ongoing land management that degrades OC coho salmon habitat is not 
feasible. The one recent study that has examined this issue (Roni et 
al., 2010) used a new technique to estimate the amount of restoration 
needed within a watershed to cause a significant increase in steelhead 
and coho salmon production. These authors found that the percentage of 
floodplain and in-channel habitat that would have to be restored in a 
modeled watershed to detect a 25 percent increase in coho salmon and 
steelhead smolt production was 20 percent. Although 20 percent may seem 
like a low value, restoring 20 percent of floodplain and in-channel 
habitat in any disturbed watershed in the Pacific Northwest would be 
very costly (Roni et al., 2010). The results of this study highlight 
the need to protect high quality habitat while strategically improving 
degraded areas with active restoration.
    Comment 24: Another commenter noted that the BRT's analysis of 
match between habitat restoration efforts and habitat limiting factors 
``* * * has the potential to provide useful guidance to local groups 
performing restoration, but some logical lapses affect the conclusions 
drawn here.'' The commenter stated that the level of detail provided 
``* * * is insufficient to fully evaluate the methods, or to make good 
use of the results at the local level.''
    Response: As stated above, we will no longer be considering the 
results of the BRT's assessment of habitat restoration in the Umpqua in 
our evaluation of protective efforts for this ESU. We do believe 
however, that this type of analysis would be appropriate for 
consideration during development of a recovery plan for this ESU.
    Comment 25: One reviewer pointed out the need for ``* * * a way in 
which future effects of restoration (again, on an ESU-wide basis) could 
be similarly quantified * * *'' The reviewer also noted the ``* * * 
pressing need to determine whether habitat is currently being lost or 
damaged faster than it can be restored or rehabilitated, particularly 
because so much money is being spent on recovering salmon habitat based 
on the belief that long-term improvement can be achieved at very large 
spatial scales.''
    Response: We agree with the reviewer's statement that there is a 
need for a way in which future effects of restoration could be 
similarly quantified. As noted above, we are working with our co-
managers to develop monitoring programs and data collection systems 
that will aide us in conducting these types of analyses in the future. 
In the absence of this information, we must look at measures of ESU 
viability to determine if restoration efforts are lowering ESU 
extinction risk.

Artificial Propagation

    Comment 26: One commenter noted that the BRT report's section on 
artificial propagation and membership of hatchery programs in the ESU 
would benefit from more information.
    Response: We agree that the addition of more information would help 
to clarify this section. The BRT revised its report to include more 
detail in this section. We must note however, that hatchery production 
has been significantly curtailed in this ESU and no longer represents a 
significant limiting factor for most populations in the ESU. There are 
only three remaining hatchery programs within the range of this ESU. 
Release numbers have been reduced 10-fold in recent years, 
substantially reducing interactions between hatchery and wild fish.

Beavers

    Comment 27: One commenter stated that the habitat benefits beavers 
(Castor canadensis) provide are landscape-context specific. The 
commenter noted that beavers occur within the ESU in a variety of 
contexts, from brackish estuarine marshes, to lakes, to large mainstem 
rivers, to smaller tributaries, and the ways in which they may alter 
this type of aquatic habitat varies considerably. The commenter also 
stated that beavers are differentially vulnerable to trappers. For 
instance, beavers tend to be more vulnerable to trappers in headwater 
areas as opposed to large mainstem rivers.
    Response: The BRT revised its report's section on beavers to 
reflect the information provided by the commenter.
    Comment 28: One commenter stated that the BRT's report properly 
reviewed the legal status of beaver protection in Oregon, but failed to 
identify cougar predation as a cause of observed beaver declines.
    Response: We agree with the commenter in part. Estimated cougar 
populations have increased since the 1970s over the entire State of 
Oregon from approximately 214 to over 2,800 individuals by 1992 
(Keister and VanDyke, 2002). However, nothing in the literature 
suggests that predation on beaver is a primary cause for reduction in 
beaver population. The majority of studies identify deer and elk as the 
primary food source for cougars (Ackerman et al., 1984).
    Comment 29: One commenter noted that many riparian areas throughout 
the range of the OC coho salmon ESU have been colonized by invasive 
Reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea). The commenter points out that 
this plant can out-compete trees and shrubs that provide food for 
beavers. This colonization may disrupt the natural cycle of consumption 
of shrubs and trees in a given area by beavers followed by recovery of 
this vegetation as beavers leave the area in search of food elsewhere.
    Response: We agree that invasion of riparian areas by Reed 
canarygrass may pose a threat to beaver food supply. In response to 
this comment, the BRT noted that more aggressive management actions may 
be needed to deal with Reed canarygrass as evidenced by recent work 
that suggests plantings and natural

[[Page 35761]]

vegetation alone cannot control it. The BRT's report highlights the 
importance of beavers to the formation and maintenance of habitat for 
juvenile OC coho salmon.
    Comment 30: One reviewer noted that based on the information 
provided in the BRT report, they could not tell if cycles or trends in 
beaver activity are evident. The reviewer stated that they thought 
there was not good evidence for a trend of any kind.
    Response: In response to this comment, the BRT added the following 
statement to the beaver section of their report: ``Due to the limited 
dataset we cannot conclude that there is an overall trend and would 
recommend a more extensive monitoring effort be pursued to identify 
short and long-term trends throughout the Oregon Coast Coho Salmon 
ESU.''
    Comment 31: One reviewer noted that some research (Pollack et al., 
2003) cited in the section on beavers in the BRT report was conducted 
in Washington state and is useful for comparison purposes but is not 
directly relevant to the OC coho salmon ESU.
    Response: This observation is correct in that the study sites for 
this research were in Washington. The BRT added a paragraph to its 
report's section on beavers to address this issue. The BRT noted that 
the areas where beaver pond density is highest typically have the same 
physical characteristics regardless of the ecological region--lower 
gradient (less than 2 percent), unconfined valley bottoms, in smaller 
watersheds (drainage areas typically less than 10 square kilometers). 
Smaller, lowland, rain-dominated Puget Sound watersheds have the same 
basic physical and hydrological characteristics as the smaller Oregon 
coast watersheds, thus the relationships we see with respect to beaver 
pond densities in Puget Sound should also hold true for the Oregon 
coast.

Forest and Agriculture Conversion

    Comment 32: One reviewer suggested that the BRT report would 
benefit from a discussion of floodplain development and storm water 
issues.
    Response: We agree that floodplain development and storm water 
management have the potential to affect water quality, peak/base stream 
flow and several physical habitat parameters for OC coho salmon. 
Although these threats may not have been specifically discussed in the 
initial BRT report, we did note in the proposed rule that 
``Urbanization has resulted in loss of streamside vegetation and added 
impervious surfaces, which alter normal hydraulic processes.'' We also 
stated in the proposed rule that ``Stormwater and agricultural runoff 
reaching streams is often contaminated by hydrocarbons, fertilizers, 
pesticides, and other contaminants.'' Nevertheless, in response to the 
reviewer's suggestion, the BRT added information on how these threats 
affect OC coho salmon habitat.
    Comment 33: One commenter stated that land use conversion trends 
may be more complex than described in the BRT report. The commenter 
noted that several types of land use conversion beyond those described 
in the BRT report, such as agricultural to forest land, and serious 
agriculture operation to hobby farm, are occurring throughout the range 
of this ESU. The commenter also noted that residential development is 
occurring along many reaches of larger rivers in this area, and this 
may lead to increased recreational fishing.
    Response: We agree that a variety of land use conversions are 
occurring throughout the range of this ESU. The BRT revised its report 
to include some of the land use conversion types identified in this 
comment. We also agree that greater human development, especially in 
riparian areas, could lead to degradation of OC coho salmon habitat. It 
becomes difficult to predict with any certainty, however, how some of 
the less common land use conversions (such as serious agricultural 
operation to hobby farm) would affect coho salmon habitat. The 
particular management changes resulting from these types of land use 
conversions can be expected to vary on a case-by-case basis depending 
on the desired outcomes of a particular land owner. For this reason, it 
is best to evaluate general trends in land use conversions when trying 
to predict how these conversions may affect OC coho salmon habitat. 
This is consistent with the approach taken by the BRT.
    Comment 34: One reviewer noted that the BRT report's section on 
land use conversion did not contain significant information on some of 
the secondary effects of residential development- water quality 
degradation from septic drainage, fertilizers and pesticides, and 
pharmaceuticals. The reviewer noted that there is a great deal of 
uncertainty about these effects and that a new report on this topic was 
expected soon from the State of Oregon Independent Multidisciplinary 
Science Team.
    Response: We agree that these secondary effects from residential 
development may pose a threat to the OC coho salmon ESU. The report of 
the Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team became available shortly 
after the publication of the initial BRT report and proposed rule. The 
BRT discussed this report and agreed with the conclusions of the 
report, namely that ``The pressures of urban and rural residential land 
use affect aquatic ecosystems and salmonids through alterations of, and 
interactions among, hydrology, physical habitat structure, water 
quality, and fish passage. These alterations occur at local and, 
especially, watershed scales, and thus require study and management at 
multiple scales. Urban and rural residential development causes 
profound changes to the pathways, volume, timing, and chemical 
composition of stormwater runoff. These changes alter stream physical, 
chemical, and biological structure and potential, as well as the 
connectivity of streams with their watersheds'' (IMST, 2010). The BRT 
updated its report to reflect this new information.
    Comment 35: Several reviewers noted that climate change, invasion 
of exotic organisms, and increasing human development may lead to 
drastic changes in riparian and aquatic communities throughout the 
range of this ESU.
    Response: In response to these comments, the BRT discussed this 
issue more fully, and expanded discussions and literature citations are 
included in its revised report in the ``Ecosystem Impacts of Non-
indigenous Species,'' ``Non-indigenous Plant Species,'' and ``Non-
indigenous Fish'' sections.

Data Used in Risk Assessment

    Comment 36: One reviewer noted that it would be useful for the BRT 
to identify key data gaps in their risk assessment.
    Response: The BRT revised its report to identify some of the key 
data gaps. For instance, the BRT noted data gaps regarding beaver 
populations, fish passage, and road density on private lands.
    Comment 37: One commenter suggested that NMFS use annual spawner 
returns to the North Umpqua River as an indicator of population status 
throughout the ESU.
    Response: We believe that evaluating the status of an entire ESU 
from dam counts for a single population ignores differences in 
populations within the ESU, such as the diversity found in the Lakes 
populations, and in the geology and hydrology of other systems. It 
would essentially restrict our analysis to a small amount of 
information while ignoring the substantial amount of other information 
available to us. The suggested approach does not take into account that 
the habitat in the North Umpqua population is not typical of the rest 
of the ESU, nor does it reflect the

[[Page 35762]]

diversity of other habitats found in the ESU. Also, as noted above, the 
North Umpqua return data have been influenced by hatchery production 
and thus do not reflect the status of natural populations and their 
habitats.
    Comment 38: One commenter stated that the BRT made several key 
assumptions about future marine conditions that are not consistent with 
the known variability in ocean conditions and adopted an overall 
pessimistic view about future ocean conditions. The commenter stated 
that the BRT could have used data on this known variability to assess 
marine conditions in both intra-annual and inter-decadal time frames.
    Response: The commenter did not identify which particular key 
assumptions about future marine conditions were questionable, so it is 
difficult to respond to this comment. However, any assumptions made by 
the BRT are consistent with the scientific literature regarding marine 
survival of coho salmon. The BRT agrees that fluctuations in marine 
conditions (including the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and other 
factors) strongly affect survival of OC coho salmon, and has accounted 
for such fluctuations in its analyses.
    Comment 39: One commenter stated that the BRT should have 
considered data on climate conditions as evidenced by patterns of tree 
ring growth.
    Response: The BRT did examine the historical record and recognized 
that there are strong climate driven fluctuations in abundance and 
productivity. These fluctuations are accounted for in both the 
Technical Recovery Team criteria and the BRT risk assessment.

Recommendations for Management

    Comment 40: One reviewer noted the lack of any recommendations for 
future management within the BRT's report. The commenter thought 
inclusion of these recommendations would be logical and desirable.
    Response: The BRT was tasked with reviewing the status of the OC 
coho salmon ESU. Specifically, the BRT was asked to assess the level of 
extinction risk for this ESU and identify the threats facing this ESU 
(letter from Barry Thom, Acting Regional Administrator, to Usha 
Varanasi, Science and Research Director of the Northwest Fisheries 
Science Center, August 13, 2009). Site-specific management actions 
designed to help conserve the OC coho salmon ESU will be identified in 
a forthcoming recovery plan for this species.

Predation

    Comment 41: One reviewer noted that the BRT report's section on 
predation was dated. The reviewer recommended some reports for the BRT 
to consider.
    Response: The BRT updated its discussion of predation with new 
(Johnson et al., 2010) as well as older relevant literature (Schreck et 
al., 2002; Clements and Schreck, 2003), as well as a recent population 
assessment of double crested cormorants within the ESU and other 
sources of information. The BRT concluded that the significant 
increases in avian predation on salmonids appears to be restricted to 
the Columbia River System and does not affect the OC coho salmon ESU. 
The Columbia River salmon ESUs suffer the greatest impact because the 
birds (Caspian terns and double-crested cormorants) have established 
large nesting colonies in close vicinity to the mainstem Columbia 
River.

Determination of Species Under the ESA

    We are responsible for determining whether species, subspecies, or 
distinct population segments (DPSs) of Pacific salmon and steelhead are 
threatened or endangered under the ESA. To identify the proper 
taxonomic unit for consideration in a listing determination for salmon, 
we use our Policy on Applying the Definition of Species under the ESA 
to Pacific Salmon (ESU Policy) (56 FR 58612). Under this policy, 
populations of salmon substantially reproductively isolated from other 
conspecific populations and representing an important component in the 
evolutionary legacy of the biological species are considered to be an 
ESU. In our listing determinations for Pacific salmon under the ESA, we 
have treated an ESU as constituting a DPS, and hence a ``species,'' 
under the ESA.
    The OC coho salmon ESU was identified as one of six West Coast coho 
salmon ESUs in a coast-wide coho status review published by NMFS in 
1995 (Weitkamp et al., 1995). Weitkamp et al. (1995) considered a 
variety of factors in delineating ESU boundaries, including 
environmental and biogeographic features of the freshwater and marine 
habitats occupied by coho salmon, patterns of life-history variation 
and patterns of genetic variation, and differences in marine 
distribution among populations based on tag recoveries. Regarding the 
OC coho salmon ESU, Weitkamp et al. (1995) concluded that Cape Blanco 
to the south and the Columbia River to the north constituted 
significant biogeographic and environmental transition zones that 
likely contributed to both reproductive isolation and evolutionary 
distinctiveness for coho salmon inhabiting opposite sides of these 
features. These findings were reinforced by discontinuities in the 
ocean tag recoveries at these same locations. The available genetic 
data also indicated that OC coho salmon north of Cape Blanco formed a 
discrete, although quite variable, group compared to samples from south 
of Cape Blanco or the Columbia River and northward.
    The BRT evaluated new information related to ESU boundaries, and 
found evidence that no ESU boundary changes are necessary (Stout et 
al., 2011). The basis for its conclusion is that the environmental and 
biogeographical information considered during the first coast-wide BRT 
review of coho salmon (Weitkamp et al., 1995) remains unchanged, and 
new tagging and genetic analysis published subsequent to the original 
ESU boundary designation continues to support the current ESU 
boundaries. The BRT also evaluated ESU membership of fish from hatchery 
programs since the last BRT review (Good et al., 2005). In doing so, it 
applied our Policy on the Consideration of Hatchery-Origin Fish in ESA 
Listing Determinations (70 FR 37204; June 28, 2005). The BRT noted that 
many hatchery programs within this ESU have been discontinued since the 
first review of coast-wide status of coho salmon (Weitkamp et al., 
1995). They identified only three programs--the North Fork Nehalem, 
Trask (Tillamook basin) and Cow Creek (South Umpqua)--that produce coho 
salmon within the boundaries of this ESU.
    The North Fork Nehalem coho stocks are managed as an isolated 
harvest program. Natural-origin fish have not been intentionally 
incorporated into the brood stock since 1986, and only adipose fin 
clipped brood stock have been taken since the late 1990s. Because of 
this, the stock is considered to have substantial divergence from the 
native natural population and is not included in the OC coho salmon 
ESU. The Trask (Tillamook population) coho salmon stock is also managed 
as an isolated harvest program. Natural-origin fish have not been 
incorporated into the brood stock since 1996 when all returns were mass 
marked. Therefore, this stock is considered to have substantial 
divergence from the native natural population and, based on our Policy 
on the Consideration of Hatchery-Origin Fish in ESA Listing 
Determinations, is not included in the OC coho salmon ESU. The Cow 
Creek stock (South Umpqua population) is managed as an integrated 
program and is included as

[[Page 35763]]

part of the ESU because the original brood stock was founded from the 
local natural origin population and natural-origin coho salmon have 
been incorporated into the brood stock on a regular basis. This brood 
stock was founded in 1987 from natural-origin coho salmon returns to 
the base of Galesville Dam on Cow Creek, a tributary to the South 
Umpqua River. Subsequently, brood stock has continued to be collected 
from returns to the dam, with natural-origin coho salmon comprising 25 
percent to 100 percent of the brood stock nearly every year since 
returning fish have been externally tagged. The Cow Creek stock is 
probably no more than moderately diverged from the local natural-origin 
coho salmon population in the South Umpqua River because of these brood 
stock practices and is therefore considered a part of this ESU.

Updated BRT Extinction Risk Assessment

    The BRT conducted an extinction risk assessment for the OC coho 
salmon ESU considering available information on trends in abundance and 
productivity, genetic diversity, population spatial structure, and 
diversity. It also considered marine survival rates, trends in 
freshwater habitat complexity, and a variety of threats to this ESU, 
such as possible effects from global climate change. We received a 
substantial amount of information during the public comment period 
regarding the BRT risk assessment. One peer reviewer of the BRT report 
also had numerous comments on the risk assessment. After considering 
this information, the BRT decided to revise its risk assessment, and 
conduct its risk voting again, considering this new information.
    The BRT noted that spawning escapements in some recent years have 
been the highest in the past 60 years. This is attributable to a 
combination of management actions and environmental conditions. In 
particular, harvest has been strongly curtailed since 1994, allowing 
more fish to return to the spawning grounds. Hatchery production has 
been reduced to a small fraction of the natural-origin production. 
Nickelson (2003) found that reduced hatchery production led directly to 
higher survival of naturally produced fish, and Buhle et al. (2009) 
found that the reduction in hatchery releases of OC coho salmon in the 
mid-1990s resulted in increased natural coho salmon abundance. Ocean 
survival, as measured by smolt to adult survival of Oregon Production 
Index area hatchery fish, generally started improving for fish 
returning in 1999 (Stout et al., 2011). In combination, these factors 
have resulted in the highest spawning escapements since 1950, although 
total abundance before harvest peaked at the low end of what was 
observed in the 1970s (Stout et al., 2011).
    The BRT applied the DSS of the Technical Recovery Team (Wainwright 
et al., 2008) to help assess viability and risk level for this ESU. Our 
proposed rule discusses the DSS in detail. The BRT updated the DSS with 
data through 2009. In the process of compiling data for the four years 
since the Technical Recovery Team analysis, the BRT discovered and 
reconciled several inconsistencies related to the data that are inputs 
into the DSS. For this reason the DSS results reported by the BRT are 
not directly comparable to the results presented in the Technical 
Recovery Team's report (Wainwright et al., 2008). The DSS results from 
the Technical Recovery Team's report are presented in the BRT report 
for historical comparison but were not used by the BRT in its 
deliberations. Data used in the updated DSS analysis were provided by 
ODFW.
    The DSS result for ESU persistence was 0.34. A value of 1.0 would 
indicate complete confidence that the ESU will persist for the next 100 
years, a value of -1.0 would indicate complete certainty of failure to 
persist, and a value of 0 would indicate no certainty of either 
persistence or extinction. The BRT therefore interpreted a value of 
0.34 to indicate a moderate certainty of ESU persistence over the next 
100 years, assuming no future trends in factors affecting the ESU. The 
DSS result for ESU sustainability was 0.24, indicating a low-to-
moderate certainty that the ESU is sustainable for the foreseeable 
future, similarly assuming no future trends in factors affecting the 
ESU. The overall ESU persistence and sustainability scores summarize a 
great deal of variability in population and stratum level information 
on sustainability.

New Habitat Trend Analysis

    In our proposed rule, we summarized the BRT's analyses of habitat 
complexity across the freshwater habitat of this ESU. We received a 
number of comments from ODFW regarding this analysis. Scientists from 
our Northwest Fisheries Science Center and ODFW formed a working group 
to resolve the technical issues identified in the ODFW comments. A 
brief background on this issue is provided below.
    Over the past decade (1998 to present), the ODFW has monitored 
wadeable streams (streams that would be shallow enough to wade across 
during survey efforts) to assess freshwater rearing habitat for the OC 
coho salmon ESU during the summer low flow period (Anlauf et al., 
2009). The goal of this program is to measure the status and trend of 
habitat conditions throughout the range of the ESU. The following 
variables related to the quality and quantity of aquatic habitat for 
coho salmon were monitored: Stream morphology, substrate composition, 
instream roughness, riparian structure, and winter rearing capacity 
(Moore, 2008). In 2009, scientists from ODFW and scientists from the 
BRT independently analyzed these data to answer the question ``Has 
juvenile coho habitat changed during ODFW's monitoring program over the 
past 11 years?'' These analyses reached different conclusions, and the 
discrepancies between the results prompted the formation of the 
interagency working group.
    The working group found that the most important discrepancy between 
the BRT analysis and the ODFW analysis (Anlauf et al., 2009) was that 
different subsets of the ODFW habitat monitoring data were used. The 
ODFW analysis focused only on sites designated as coho salmon spawning 
or rearing habitat (1st through 3rd order wadeable streams and below 
fish passage barriers; Anlauf et al., 2009). In contrast, the BRT's 
analysis had included sites both within and outside of the area 
recognized as spawning and rearing habitat for coho salmon. Both 
approaches are biologically reasonable, but the working group agreed 
that a common dataset should be used in the joint analysis and that 
initially only spawning or rearing sites within the OC coho salmon ESU 
be included for the working group report. Subsequently, the BRT also 
analyzed the upstream areas in a separate analysis, because these areas 
also affect water quality and habitat (e.g., large wood) in downstream 
areas where coho spawning and rearing occur.
    The working group also explored whether differences in the two 
group's modeling approaches led to significant differences in the 
results, and concluded that when the same data were used, any 
differences in modeling approach led to at most minor differences in 
results. These issues are discussed in detail in the BRT report.
    In the BRT's original habitat trend analysis, three measures of 
habitat complexity were assessed: Winter parr capacity, summer parr 
capacity, and channel score (AREMP). In addition to winter parr 
capacity, ODFW also examined trends in large woody debris, and fine 
organic sediment (Anlauf et al., 2009). The working group agreed that 
the three measures of complexity would

[[Page 35764]]

be re-analyzed, in addition to the volume of large woody debris, and 
fine organic sediment in riffles.
    Trend estimates were mixed and vary both among metrics and regions. 
Habitat complexity and summer parr capacity were decreasing in the 
Umpqua but increasing in the other regions. Winter parr capacity 
trended flat in the North Coast and Mid-Coast, but declined in the Mid-
South and Umpqua. For the percent of fine sediment in riffles, there 
appear to be declines in the North and Mid-Coast, a positive trend in 
the Mid-South, and little change in the Umpqua. Large wood volume 
appears to have declined in the North Coast and Umpqua, and increased 
in the Mid-Coast and Mid-South regions.
    In contrast to the coho rearing areas, trends in upstream areas 
were more pronounced. In particular, large woody debris declined 
substantially in all regions. Trends in sediment were mixed, with 
increases in the Mid-Coast and Mid-South, and declines in the North 
Coast and Umpqua
    The BRT was impressed with the ODFW habitat monitoring program and 
believes it is an invaluable source of information on freshwater 
habitat trends on the Oregon coast. The results from the working group 
were encouraging in that they resolved some clear discrepancies between 
earlier analyses. The BRT concluded that the results paint a complex 
picture of habitat trends along the Oregon coast. Some trends, such as 
the increase in habitat complexity and summer parr capacity in 3 of the 
4 regions were clearly encouraging. Other trends, such as the declines 
in large woody debris in the North Coast and Umpqua regions and in 
upstream areas in all regions appear more troubling. The North Coast 
trend in large woody debris may be a result of large debris dams that 
formed during the 1996 floods and have been actively redistributed over 
the past several years, reducing overall large woody debris densities. 
While the North Coast experienced a large decline, it also had the 
largest amount of large woody debris relative to the other regions. The 
declining trends in winter parr capacity (believed to be a limiting 
life-stage for coho production) in two regions also concerned the BRT.

BRT Extinction Risk Conclusions

    To reach its final extinction risk conclusions, the BRT used a 
``risk matrix'' as a method to organize and summarize the professional 
judgment of a panel of knowledgeable scientists with regard to 
extinction risk of the species. This approach is described in detail by 
Wainwright and Kope (1999) and has been used for over 10 years in our 
Pacific salmonid and other marine species status reviews. In this risk 
matrix approach, the collective condition of individual populations is 
summarized at the ESU level according to four demographic risk 
criteria: Abundance, growth rate/productivity, spatial structure/
connectivity, and diversity. These viability criteria, outlined in 
McElhany et al. (2000), reflect concepts that are well founded in 
conservation biology and are generally applicable to a wide variety of 
species. These criteria describe demographic risks that individually 
and collectively provide strong indicators of extinction risk. The 
summary of demographic risks and other pertinent information obtained 
by this approach was then considered by the BRT in determining the 
species' overall level of extinction risk. This analysis process is 
described in detail in the BRT's report (Stout et al., 2011). The 
scoring for the risk criteria correspond to the following values: 1--
very low risk, 2--low risk, 3--moderate risk, 4--high risk, 5--very 
high risk.
    After reviewing all relevant biological information for the 
species, each BRT member assigned a risk score to each of the four 
demographic criteria. The scores were tallied (means, modes, and range 
of scores), reviewed, and the range of perspectives discussed by the 
BRT before making their overall risk determination. To allow 
individuals to express uncertainty in determining the overall level of 
extinction risk facing the species, the BRT adopted the ``likelihood 
point'' method, often referred to as the ``FEMAT'' method because it is 
a variation of a method used by scientific teams evaluating options 
under the Northwest Forest Plan (FEMAT 1993). In this approach, each 
BRT member distributes ten likelihood points among the three species' 
extinction risk categories, reflecting their opinion of how likely that 
category correctly reflects the true species status. This method has 
been used in all status reviews for anadromous Pacific salmonids since 
1999, as well as in reviews of Puget Sound rockfishes (Stout et al., 
2001b), Pacific herring (Stout et al., 2001a; Gustafson et al., 2006), 
Pacific hake, walleye pollock, Pacific cod (Gustafson et al., 2000), 
and black abalone (Butler et al., 2008).
    In its May 2010 preliminary report, the BRT conducted both the risk 
assessment matrix analysis and the overall extinction risk assessment 
under two different sets of assumptions. First, the BRT evaluated 
extinction risk based on the demographic risk criteria (abundance, 
growth rate, spatial structure and diversity) recently exhibited by the 
ESU, assuming that the threats influencing ESU status would continue 
unchanged into the future. This case in effect assumed that all of the 
threats evaluated in the previous section of the report were already 
fully manifest in the current ESU status and would in aggregate neither 
worsen nor improve in the future. Also, in the 2010 preliminary report, 
the BRT evaluated extinction risk based on the demographic risk 
criteria currently exhibited by the ESU, taking into account 
consideration of predicted changes to threats that the BRT evaluated to 
be not yet manifest in the current demographic status of the ESU. In 
effect, this scenario asked the BRT to evaluate whether threats to the 
ESU would lessen, worsen, or remain constant compared to current 
conditions.
    In the time since the completion of the last risk assessment in 
2010, the BRT considered additional information on the potential 
magnitude and trajectory of threats including climate change, changes 
in ocean conditions, and trends in freshwater habitat. The BRT also 
further refined the time horizon used to evaluate whether the OC coho 
salmon ESU was at moderate risk of extinction. The BRT selected a 30 to 
80 year time frame, noting that beyond this time horizon, the projected 
effects on OC coho salmon viability from climate change, ocean 
conditions, and trends in freshwater habitat become very difficult to 
predict with any certainty. Considering this new information, the BRT 
felt it unnecessary and potentially confusing to conduct the risk 
assessment under multiple sets of assumptions. For the final risk 
assessment, therefore, each BRT member evaluated all the available 
information on both current demographic status and future threats to 
come to a single overall conclusion on the degree of extinction risk.
    The mean risk matrix scores for each demographic risk factor fell 
between the low risk (2) and moderate risk (3) categories (abundance 
mean score= 2.21, productivity mean score=2.63, spatial structure mean 
score=2.33 and diversity mean score=2.67) indicating that the BRT as a 
whole did not consider any of the demographic risk factors as likely to 
contribute substantially to a high risk of short-term extinction when 
considered on its own.
    The overall assessment of extinction risk of the OC coho salmon ESU 
indicated considerable uncertainty about its status, with most 
likelihood points split between ``moderate risk'' and ``not at risk,'' 
and a small minority of points indicating ``high risk.'' The

[[Page 35765]]

BRT members placed 6 percent of the likelihood points in the high risk 
category, 47 percent of the likelihood points in the moderate risk 
category and 47 percent of the points in the low risk category.
    The large range in the demographic risk scores and the lack of a 
strong mode in the overall assessment of risk were indicative of 
considerable uncertainty among BRT members about the current level of 
risk facing the ESU. This uncertainty was largely due to the difficulty 
in balancing the clear improvements in some aspects of the ESU's status 
over the last 15 years against persistent threats driving the longer 
term status of the ESU, which probably have not changed over the same 
time frame and are predicted to degrade in the future. In addition, the 
BRT noted that accurately predicting the long-term trend of a complex 
system is inherently difficult, and this also led to uncertainty in the 
overall risk assessment.
    The BRT concluded that some aspects of the ESU's status have 
clearly improved since the initial status review in the mid-1990s 
(Weitkamp et al., 1995). In particular, the BRT assigned a relatively 
low mean risk score to the abundance factor, noting that spawning 
escapements were higher in some recent years than they had been since 
1970. Recent total returns (pre-harvest recruits) were also 
substantially higher than the low extremes of the 1990s, but still 
mostly below levels of the 1960s and 1970s. The BRT attributed the 
increased spawner escapements largely to a combination of greatly 
reduced harvest rates, reduced hatchery production, and improved ocean 
conditions. Even with the recent increases, however, pre-harvest 
abundance remains at approximately 10 percent of estimated historical 
abundance (approximately 150,000 current compared to peak abundance of 
approximately 1.5 million fish historical).
    The BRT also noted that compared to the mid-1990s, the ESU 
contained relatively abundant wild populations throughout its range, 
leading to a relatively low risk associated with spatial structure. The 
BRT also discussed the observation that the recent natural origin 
spawning abundance of the OC coho salmon ESU was higher than that 
observed for other listed salmon ESUs, although some members noted that 
the 15-fold variability in abundance since the mid-1990s brings into 
question how heavily to weigh abundance as an indicator of status. 
Finally, the BRT noted that hundreds of individual habitat improvement 
projects over the last 15 years had likely benefited the ESU, although 
quantifying these benefits is difficult.
    The BRT also discussed some ongoing positive changes that are 
likely to become manifest in abundance trends for the ESU in the 
future. In particular, hatchery production continues to be reduced with 
the cessation of releases in the North Umpqua River and Salmon River 
populations, and the BRT expects that the near-term ecological benefits 
from these reductions will result in improved natural production for 
these populations in the future. In addition, the BRT expected that 
reductions in hatchery releases that have occurred over the past decade 
may continue to produce increasingly positive effects on the survival 
of the ESU in the future, due to the time it may take for past genetic 
impacts to become attenuated.
    Despite these positive factors, the BRT also had considerable 
concerns about the long-term viability of the ESU. The BRT continued to 
be concerned that there had been a long-term decline in the 
productivity of the ESU from the 1930s through the 1990s. Despite some 
improvements in productivity in the early 2000s, the BRT was concerned 
that the overall productivity of the ESU remains low compared to what 
was observed as recently as the 1960s and 1970s. The BRT was also 
concerned that the majority of the improvement in productivity in the 
early 2000s was likely due to improved ocean conditions, with a 
relatively smaller component due to reduced hatchery production (Buhle 
et al., 2009).
    The BRT noted that the legacy of past forest management practices 
combined with lowland agriculture and urban development has resulted in 
a situation in which the areas of highest habitat capacity (intrinsic 
potential) are now severely degraded. The BRT also noted that the 
combined ODFW/NMFS analysis of freshwater habitat trends for the Oregon 
coast found little evidence for an overall improving trend in 
freshwater habitat conditions since the mid-1990s, and evidence of 
negative trends in some strata. The BRT was also concerned that recent 
changes in the protection status of beaver, which through their dam 
building activities create coho salmon habitat, could result in further 
negative trends in habitat quality. The BRT was therefore concerned 
that when ocean conditions cycle back to a period of poor survival for 
coho salmon, the ESU may rapidly decline to the low abundance seen in 
the mid-1990s. Some members of the BRT observed that the reduction in 
risks from hatchery and harvest are expected to help buffer the ESU 
when marine survival returns to a lower level, likely resulting in 
improved status compared to the situation in the mid-1990s. Others 
noted that potential declines in beaver, observed negative trends in 
some habitat features, and the potential for more severe declines in 
marine productivity could result in even lower abundance levels than 
during the last period of poor ocean conditions. On balance, the BRT 
was, as a whole, uncertain about whether the long-term downward 
trajectory of the ESU's status has been arrested and uncertain about 
the ESU's ability to survive another prolonged period of low ocean 
survivals.
    Finally, the BRT was also concerned that global climate change will 
lead to a long-term downward trend in both freshwater and marine coho 
salmon habitat compared to current conditions. There was considerable 
uncertainty about the magnitude of most of the specific effects climate 
change will have on salmon habitat, but the BRT was concerned that most 
changes associated with climate change are expected to result in poorer 
and more variable habitat conditions for OC coho salmon than exist 
currently. Some members of the BRT noted that changes in freshwater 
flow patterns as a result of climate change may not be as severe in the 
Oregon coast as in other parts of the Pacific Northwest, while others 
were concerned by recent observations of extremely poor marine survival 
rates for several West Coast salmon populations. The distribution of 
overall risk scores reflects some of this uncertainty.
    The BRT concluded that, when future conditions are taken into 
account, the OC coho salmon ESU as a whole is at moderate risk of 
extinction. The BRT therefore did not explicitly address whether the 
ESU was at risk in only a significant portion of its range.

Summary of Factors Affecting the OC Coho Salmon ESU

The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of 
Its Habitat or Range

    Our previous Federal Register Notices, proposed rule, previous BRT 
reports (Weitkamp et al, 1995; Good et al. 2005), as well as numerous 
other reports and assessments (ODFW, 1995; State of Oregon, 2005; State 
of Oregon 2007), have reviewed in detail the effects of historical and 
ongoing land management practices that have altered OC coho salmon 
habitat. The BRT reviewed the factors that have led to the current 
degraded condition of OC coho salmon habitat. We briefly summarize

[[Page 35766]]

this information here and direct readers to the comprehensive analysis 
of factors affecting OC coho salmon habitat in the BRT report (Stout et 
al., 2011) for more detail.
    Historical and ongoing timber harvest and road building have 
reduced stream shade, increased fine sediment levels, reduced levels of 
instream large wood, and altered watershed hydrology. Historical splash 
damming removed stream roughness elements such as boulders and large 
wood and in some cases scoured streams to bedrock. Fish passage has 
been blocked in many streams by improperly designed culverts. Fish 
passage has been restricted in most estuary areas by tide gates.
    Urbanization has resulted in loss of streamside vegetation and 
added impervious surfaces, which alter normal hydraulic processes. 
Agricultural activities have removed stream-side vegetation. Building 
of dikes and levees has disconnected streams from their floodplains and 
resulted in loss of natural stream sinuosity. Stormwater and 
agricultural runoff reaching streams is often contaminated by 
hydrocarbons, fertilizers, pesticides, and other contaminants. In the 
Umpqua River basin, diversion of water for agriculture reduces base 
stream flow and may result in higher summer stream temperatures.
    Conversion of forest and agricultural land to urban and suburban 
development is likely to result in an increase in these effects in the 
future (Burnett et al., 2007). Loss of beavers from areas inhabited by 
the OC coho salmon has led to reduced stream habitat complexity and 
loss of freshwater wetlands. The BRT reports that the amount of tidal 
wetland habitat available to support coho salmon rearing has declined 
substantially relative to historical estimates across all of the 
biogeographic strata (Stout et al., 2011). Instream and off-channel 
gravel mining has removed natural stream substrates and altered 
floodplain function.

Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes

    Historical harvest rates of OC coho salmon ranged from 60 percent 
to 90 percent from the 1960s into the 1980s (Stout et al., 2011). 
Modest harvest reductions were achieved in the late 1980s. By 1994, 
most directed coho salmon harvest was prohibited (Stout et al., 2011). 
The Pacific Fishery Management Council adopted Amendment 13 to its 
Salmon Fishery Management Plan in 1998. This amendment was part of the 
Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds and was designed to reduce 
harvest of OC coho salmon. Current harvest rates are based on predicted 
marine survival and range from 0.8 percent to 45 percent. Allowable 
harvest rates have not exceeded 20 percent (with actual harvest rates 
being considerably lower) in the past 10 years (PFMC, 2010).
    A few small freshwater fisheries on OC coho salmon have been 
allowed in recent years based on the provision in Amendment 13 that 
terminal fisheries can be allowed on strong populations as long as the 
overall exploitation rate for the ESU does not exceed the Amendment 13 
allowable rate, and that escapement is not reduced below full seeding 
of the best available habitat. We have approved these fisheries with 
the condition that the methodologies used by the ODFW to predict 
population abundances and estimate full seeding levels are presented to 
the Pacific Fishery Management Council for review and approval.
    While historical harvest management may have contributed to OC coho 
declines, the BRT concluded that the decreases in harvest mortalities 
described above have reduced this threat to the ESU and that further 
harvest reductions would not further reduce the risk to ESU 
persistence.

Disease or Predation

    The ODFW (2005), in its assessment of OC coho salmon, asserted that 
disease and parasitism is not an important consideration in the 
recovery of this ESU. However, as many of the streams coho salmon 
juveniles inhabit are already close to lethal temperatures during the 
summer months, and with the expectation of rising stream temperatures 
due to global climate change, increases in infection rates of juvenile 
coho by parasites may become an increasingly important stressor both 
for freshwater and marine survival (Stout et al., 2011) and may become 
important risks for juvenile fish in the early ocean-entry stage of the 
lifecycle.
    The BRT identified several bird species and marine mammals that 
prey on OC coho salmon, but concluded that avian and mammalian 
predation may not have been a significant factor for decline when 
compared with other factors, but more recent work shows that it may be 
important to recovery actions in certain populations and specific 
situations within the OC Coho Salmon ESU.
    The BRT was more concerned about predation on OC coho salmon from 
introduced warm-water fishes such as smallmouth bass (Micropterus 
dolomieu) and largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides). These predatory 
fish are especially abundant in the streams and lakes of the Lakes and 
the lower Umpqua River. The BRT concluded that predation and 
competition from exotic fishes, particularly in light of the warming 
water temperatures from global climate change, could seriously affect 
the lake and slow-water rearing life history of OC coho salmon by 
increasing predation.

The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    Existing regulations governing coho salmon harvest have 
dramatically improved the ESU's likelihood of persistence. These 
regulations are unlikely to be weakened in the future. Many hatchery 
practices that were detrimental to the long-term viability of this ESU 
have been discontinued. As the BRT notes in its report, some of the 
benefits of these management changes are being realized as improvements 
in ESU abundance. However, trends in freshwater habitat complexity 
throughout many areas of this ESU's range remain discernibly unchanged 
(Stout et al., 2011). We remain concerned that regulation of some 
habitat altering actions is insufficient to provide habitat conditions 
that support a viable ESU. In the Efforts Being Made to Protect the 
Species section of this Notice, we present our analysis of the current 
efforts to protect OC coho salmon freshwater and estuarine habitat

Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting its Continued Existence

    Ocean conditions in the Pacific Northwest exhibit patterns of 
recurring, decadal-scale variability (including the Pacific Decadal 
Oscillation and the El Ni[ntilde]o Southern Oscillation), and 
correlations exist between these oceanic changes and salmon abundance 
in the Pacific Northwest (Stout et al., 2011). It is also generally 
accepted that for at least 2 decades, beginning about 1977, marine 
productivity conditions were unfavorable for the majority of salmon and 
steelhead populations in the Pacific Northwest, but this pattern broke 
in 1998, after which marine productivity has been quite variable (Stout 
et al., 2011). In considering these shifts in ocean conditions, the BRT 
was concerned about how prolonged periods of poor marine survival 
caused by unfavorable ocean conditions may affect the population 
viability parameters of abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and 
diversity. OC coho salmon have persisted through many favorable-
unfavorable ocean/climate cycles in the past. However, in the past

[[Page 35767]]

much of their freshwater habitat was in good condition, buffering the 
effects of ocean/climate variability on population abundance and 
productivity. It is uncertain how these populations will fare in 
periods of poor ocean survival when their freshwater, estuary, and 
nearshore marine habitats are degraded (Stout et al., 2011).
    The potential effects of global climate change are also a concern 
for this species. The BRT noted that there is considerable uncertainty 
regarding the effects of climate change on OC coho salmon and their 
freshwater, marine, and estuarine habitat. The final BRT report (Stout 
et al., 2011) relied on an analysis of climate effects on OC coho 
salmon developed by two of its members (Wainwright and Weitkamp, in 
review).
    Recent climate change has had widespread ecological effects across 
the globe, including changes in phenology; changes in trophic 
interactions; range shifts (both in latitude and elevation and depth); 
extinctions; and genetic adaptations (Parmesan, 2006). These types of 
changes have observed in salmon populations (ISAB 2007; Crozier et al., 
2008a, and Mantua et al., 2009). Although these changes have 
undoubtedly influenced the observed VSP attributes for OC coho salmon 
ESU, the BRT could not partition past climate effects from other 
factors influencing the status of the ESU. Continuing climate change 
poses a threat to aquatic ecosystems (Poff et al., 2002) and more 
locally to Pacific salmon (Mote et al., 2003). The coho salmon life 
cycle extends across three main habitat types: Freshwater rivers and 
lakes, estuaries, and marine environments. In addition, terrestrial 
forest habitats are also essential to coho salmon because they 
determine the quality of freshwater habitats by influencing the types 
of sediments in spawning habitats and the abundance and structure of 
pools in juvenile rearing habitats (Cedarholm and Reid, 1987). The BRT 
considered these four habitats, how physical climate change is expected 
to affect those habitats over the next 50 years, and how salmon may 
respond to those effects during specific life-history stages (Stout et 
al., 2011; Wainwright and Weitkamp, in review). Climate conditions have 
effects on each of these habitats, thus affecting different portions of 
the life cycle through different pathways, leading to a very complex 
set of potential effects. The BRT recognized that, while we have 
quantitative estimates of likely trends for some of the physical 
climate changes, we do not have sufficient understanding of the 
biological response to these changes to reliably quantify the effects 
on salmon populations and extinction risk. For this reason, their 
analysis was qualitative, summarizing likely trends in climate, 
identifying the pathways by which those trends are likely to affect 
salmon, and assessing the likely direction and rough magnitude of coho 
salmon population response.
    Throughout the life cycle of OC coho salmon, there are a numerous 
potential effects of climate change (Stout et al., 2011; Wainwright and 
Weitkamp, in review). The main predicted effects in terrestrial and 
freshwater habitats include warmer, drier summers, reduced snowpack, 
lower summer flows, higher summer stream temperatures, and increased 
winter floods, which would affect coho salmon by reducing available 
summer rearing habitat, increasing potential scour and egg loss in 
spawning habitat, increasing thermal stress, and increasing predation 
risk. In estuarine habitats, the main physical effects are predicted to 
be rising sea level and increasing water temperatures, which would lead 
to a reduction in intertidal wetland habitats, increasing thermal 
stress, increasing predation risk, and unpredictable changes in 
biological community composition. In marine habitats, there are a 
number of physical changes that would likey affect coho salmon, 
including higher water temperature, intensified upwelling, delayed 
spring transition, intensified stratification, and increasing acidity 
in coastal waters. Of these, only intensified upwelling would be 
expected to benefit coastal-rearing salmon; all the other effects would 
likely be negative.
    Despite the uncertainties involved in predicting the effects of 
global climate change on the OC coho salmon ESU, the available 
information indicates that most impacts are likely to be negative. 
While individual effects at a particular life-history stage may be 
small, the cumulative effect of many small effects multiplied across 
life-history stages and across generations can result in large changes 
in salmon population dynamics (Stout et al., 2011). In its conclusion 
on the likely effects of climate change, the BRT expressed both 
positive and negative possible effects but stressed that when effects 
are considered collectively, their impact on ESU viability is likely to 
be negative despite the large uncertainties associated with individual 
effects.

Efforts Being Made To Protect the Species

    Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires the Secretary to take into 
account efforts being made to protect a species when evaluating a 
species' listing classification (50 CFR 424.11(f)). In our proposed 
rule for this action, we presented a comprehensive analysis of Federal, 
State, and local programs that provide protection to OC coho salmon and 
their habitat. We did not receive any specific comments regarding our 
analysis of protective efforts during the public comment period. We 
present a summary of that analysis below, and direct the reader to the 
proposed rule for greater detail.

Forestry

State Forest Practices Act
    Management of riparian areas on private forest lands within the 
range of OC coho salmon is regulated by the Oregon Forest Practices Act 
and Forest Practice Rules (Oregon Department of Forestry, 2005b). These 
rules require the establishment of riparian management areas (RMA) on 
certain streams that are within or adjacent to forestry operations. The 
RMA widths vary from 10 feet (3.05 meters) to 100 feet (30.48 meters) 
depending on the stream classification, with fish-bearing streams 
having wider RMA than streams that are not fish-bearing.
    Although the Oregon Forest Practices Act and the Forest Practice 
Rules generally have become more protective of riparian and aquatic 
habitats over time, significant concerns remain over their ability to 
adequately protect water quality and salmon habitat (Everest and 
Reeves, 2007; ODF, 2005b; IMST, 1999). In particular, disagreements 
continue over: (1) Whether the widths of RMAs are sufficient to fully 
protect riparian functions and stream habitats; (2) whether operations 
allowed within RMAs will degrade stream habitats; (3) operations on 
high-risk landslide sites; and (4) watershed-scale effects. Based on 
the available information, we were unable to conclude that the Oregon 
Forest Practices Act adequately protects OC coho habitat in all 
circumstances. On some streams, forestry operations conducted in 
compliance with this act are likely to reduce stream shade, slow the 
recruitment of large woody debris, and add fine sediments. Since there 
are no limitations on cumulative watershed effects, road density on 
private forest lands, which is high throughout the range of this ESU, 
is unlikely to decrease.
 State Forest Programs
    Approximately 567,000 acres (2,295 square kilometers) of forest 
land within the range of OC coho salmon are managed by the Oregon Board 
of Forestry (Oregon Department of

[[Page 35768]]

Forestry, 2005). The majority of these lands are managed under the 
Northwest Oregon Forest Management Plan and the Elliot Forest 
Management Plan. The plans are described in detail in our proposed rule 
and in Oregon Department of Forestry (2001 and 2006).
    The Oregon Department of Forestry began an ESA section 10 habitat 
conservation plan for the Elliot State Forest Management Plan. On July 
19, 2009, we notified Oregon Department of Forestry that ``we are 
unable to conclude the strategies would meet the conservation needs of 
our trust resources and provide for the survival and recovery of Oregon 
Coast (OC) coho salmon.'' (Letter from Kim Kratz, NMFS to Jim Young, 
Oregon Department of Forestry, dated July 19, 2009). We identified 
concerns over stream shade, woody debris recruitment, and certain other 
issues that needed to be resolved before the Habitat Conservation Plan 
can be approved. On July 27, 2009, the Oregon Department of Forestry 
responded, stating that the proposed protective measures ``will provide 
a high level of protection for Oregon's fish and wildlife species and a 
low level of risk'' (Letter from Jim Young, Oregon Department of 
Forestry, to Kim Kratz, NMFS, dated July 27, 2009). There is still 
significant disagreement over whether the proposed protective measures 
are sufficient to conserve OC coho salmon and their habitat. Since 
publication of our proposed rule, no additional progress has been made 
on this habitat conservation plan. We are as yet unable to conclude 
that the Elliot State and the Northwest Oregon Forest Management Plans 
provide for OC coho salmon habitat that is capable of supporting 
populations that are viable during both good and poor marine 
conditions.
Northwest Forest Plan
    Since 1994, land management on Forest Service and Bureau of Land 
Management (BLM) lands in Western Oregon has been guided by the Federal 
Northwest Forest Plan (USDA and USDI, 1994). The aquatic conservation 
strategy contained in this plan includes elements such as designation 
of riparian management zones, activity-specific management standards, 
watershed assessment, watershed restoration, and identification of key 
watersheds (USDA and USDI, 1994).
    Although much of the habitat with high intrinsic potential to 
support the recovery of OC coho salmon is on lower-elevation, private 
lands, Federal forest lands contain much of the current high-quality 
habitat for this species (Burnett et al., 2007). Relative to forest 
practice rules and practices on many non-Federal lands, the Northwest 
Forest Plan has large riparian management zones (1 to 2 site-potential 
tree heights) and relatively protective, activity-specific management 
standards (USDA and USDI, 1994). As discussed in the proposed rule, we 
consider the Northwest Forest Plan, when fully implemented, to be 
sufficient to provide for the habitat needs of OC coho salmon habitat 
on Federal lands. Although maintaining this high-quality habitat on 
Federal lands is necessary for the recovery of OC coho salmon, the 
recovery of the species is unlikely unless habitat can be improved in 
streams with high-intrinsic-potential on non-Federal lands (Burnett et 
al., 2007).
    The proposed rule also noted that uncertainty exists about the 
future of the aquatic conservation strategy on Federal lands in the 
Pacific Northwest. The Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management 
have attempted to revise the aquatic conservation strategy of the 
Northwest Forest Plan several times over the last few years, but have 
encountered legal challenges each time, resulting in no change to the 
strategy. In addition, ESA section 7 consultations on the management of 
riparian forests on Federal lands throughout the range of the OC coho 
salmon ESU have become increasingly contentious over the last year. 
Recently, we initiated a dispute resolution process with the Forest 
Service, Bureau of Land Management, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
to help resolve scientific issues associated with the management of 
riparian forests and its effects on salmon habitat.

Agriculture

    Across all populations, agricultural lands occupy approximately 0-
20 percent of lands adjacent to OC coho salmon habitat (Burnett et al., 
2007). Much of this habitat is considered to have high intrinsic 
potential (low gradient stream reaches with historically high habitat 
complexity) but has been degraded by past management activities 
(Burnett et al., 2007). In our proposed rule, we presented an analysis 
of the degree of protection afforded to OC coho salmon habitat by: (1) 
Agricultural water quality programs, (2) state water quality management 
plans for confined animal feeding operation, (3) state pesticide 
programs, (4) the Federal pesticide labeling program, and (5) 
irrigation and water availability regulations. We concluded that these 
state and Federal programs are partially effective at protecting OC 
coho salmon habitat. Many of the agricultural actions that have the 
greatest potential to degrade coho habitat, such as management of 
animal waste, application of toxic pesticides, and discharge of fill 
material, have some protective measures in place that limit their 
adverse effects on aquatic habitat. However, deficiencies in these 
programs limit their effectiveness at protecting OC coho salmon 
habitat. In particular, the riparian rules of the water quality 
management program are vague and enforcement of this program is 
sporadic. The lack of clear criteria for riparian condition will 
continue to make the requirements of this program difficult to enforce. 
Levees and dikes can be maintained and left devoid of riparian 
vegetation regardless of their proximity to a stream. The lack of 
streamside buffers in the state's pesticide program likely results in 
water quality impacts from the application of pesticides. Although new 
requirements from ESA section 7 consultations on Federal pesticide 
registration may afford more protection to OC coho salmon, these 
requirements will only apply if the OC coho salmon ESU remains listed. 
Although a water leasing program is available, there is much 
uncertainty about how this program will result in increased instream 
flow. The available information leads us to conclude that it is likely 
that the quality of OC coho salmon habitat on private agricultural 
lands may improve slowly over time or remain in a degraded state. It is 
unlikely that, under the current programs, OC coho salmon habitat will 
recover to the point that it can produce viable populations during both 
good and poor marine conditions.

Federal Clean Water Act Fill and Removal Permitting

    Several sections of the Federal Clean Water Act, such as section 
401 (water quality certification), section 402 (National Pollutant 
Discharge Elimination System), and section 404 (discharge of fill into 
waters of the United States), regulate activities that might degrade 
salmon habitat. Despite the existence and enforcement of this law, a 
significant percentage of stream reaches in the range of the Oregon 
Coast coho salmon do not meet current water quality standards. For 
instance, many of the populations of this ESU have degraded water 
quality identified as a secondary limiting factor (ODFW, 2007). Forty 
percent of the stream miles inhabited by OC salmon ESU are classified 
as temperature impaired (Stout et al., 2011). Although programs carried 
out under the Clean Water Act are well funded and enforcement of this 
law occurs, it is unlikely that programs are sufficient to protect 
salmon habitat

[[Page 35769]]

in a condition that would provide for viable populations during good 
and poor marine conditions.

Gravel Mining

    Gravel mining occurs in various areas throughout the freshwater 
range of OC coho salmon but is most common in the South Fork Umpqua, 
South Fork Coquille, Nehalem, Nestucca, Trask, Kilchis, Miami, and 
Wilson rivers. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issues permits under 
section 404 of the Clean Water Act and section 10 of the Rivers and 
Harbors Act for gravel mining in rivers in the southern extent of the 
OC coho salmon's range. Although gravel mining activities using similar 
methods occur within rivers at the northern extent of this ESU's range, 
such as the Nehalem River, the Corps of Engineers does not always issue 
permits for these activities. It is unclear why fewer permits are 
issued in the northern portion of this ESU's range. The Oregon 
Department of State Lands issues similar permits under both the 
Removal-Fill Law and the State Scenic Waterway Law.
    In our proposed rule we described in detail the potential adverse 
effects of improperly managed gravel mining on OC coho salmon habitat. 
We noted that gravel mining can result in a deeper and less complex 
streambed with reduced refuge areas for juvenile coho salmon. Gravel 
mining can alter salmonid food webs and reduce the amount of prey 
available for juvenile salmonids. Removal of riverbed substrates may 
also alter the relationship between sediment load and shear stress 
forces and increase bank and channel erosion. This disrupts channel 
form, and can also disrupt the processes of channel formation and 
habitat development (Lagasse et al., 1980; Waters, 1995). Operation of 
heavy equipment in the river channel or riparian areas can result in 
disturbance of vegetation, exposure of bare soil to erosive forces, and 
spills or releases of petroleum-based contaminants.
    In our proposed rule, we noted that we have issued draft conference 
opinions under section 7 of the ESA that have concluded that issuance 
of permits for gravel mining in streams occupied by OC coho salmon 
would jeopardize the continued existence of this ESU and result in the 
destruction or adverse modification of their critical habitat (letter 
from Michael Crouse, NMFS to Larry Evans, Corps of Engineers dated May 
29, 2007). Although gravel mining has ceased in some areas occupied by 
this ESU, gravel mining in the South Fork Coquille and other areas 
remains a concern.
    Recent ESA and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 
Act consultations indicate that, in some cases, the measures governing 
sand and gravel mining are inadequate to provide for OC coho salmon 
habitat capable of producing viable populations during good and poor 
marine conditions.

Habitat Restoration Programs

    The Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board funds and facilitates 
habitat restoration projects throughout the range of the OC coho 
salmon. Many of these projects occur on private land and are planned 
with local stakeholder groups known as watershed councils. Biologists 
and restoration specialists from state, Federal, and tribal agencies 
often assist in the planning and implementation of projects. Habitat 
restoration projects funded by the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board 
include installation of fish screens, riparian planting, placement of 
large woody debris, road treatments to reduce sediment inputs to 
streams, wetland restoration, and removal of fish passage barriers 
(Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board, 2009). The web-based Oregon 
Watershed Restoration Inventory (http://www.oregon.gov/OWEB/MONITOR/OWRI_data.shtml) and the North Coast Explorer (http://www.northcoastexplorer.info/) systems provide detailed information on 
restoration projects implemented within the range of OC coho salmon. We 
also maintain the Pacific Northwest Salmon Habitat Project Database 
(http://webapps.nwfsc.noaa.gov/pnshp) to track salmon habitat 
restoration projects. Douglas County provided information on several 
habitat restoration projects completed within the Umpqua River Basin. 
In addition to state and private efforts, the Forest Service and Bureau 
of Land Management carry out restoration projects on Federal lands 
(USDA and USDI, 2005).
    A number of restoration projects are occurring throughout the range 
of this ESU and we expect they will have benefits to ESU viability some 
time in the future. However, we do not have information available that 
would allow us to predict or quantify these future improvements to ESU 
viability. In the absence of this information, we must look at measures 
of ESU viability to determine if restoration efforts are lowering ESU 
extinction risk. In the case of OC coho salmon, there are some 
encouraging signs such as increased abundance over the last several 
years.

Beaver Management

    Beavers were once widespread across Oregon. There is general 
agreement that beavers are a natural component of the aquatic ecosystem 
and beaver dams provide ideal habitat for overwintering coho salmon 
juveniles (ODFW, 1997). Currently, beavers in Oregon are classified as 
nuisance species, so there is no closed season or bag limit. They may 
be killed at any time they are encountered. Oregon also maintains a 
trapping season for beavers. The ODFW is currently investigating 
possible ways to protect beavers and their dams throughout the range of 
OC coho salmon. All current protective efforts are voluntary, and there 
is low certainty they will be fully implemented.

Final Listing Determination

    Section 4(b)(1) of the ESA requires that a listing determination be 
based solely on the best scientific and commercial data available, 
after conducting a review of the status of the species and after taking 
into account those efforts, if any, being made by any state or foreign 
nation to protect and conserve the species. We have reviewed the 
preliminary and final reports of the BRT (Stout et al., 2010, 2011), 
co-manager comments, peer review, public comments, and other available 
published and unpublished information. Based on this review, we 
conclude that there is no new information to indicate that the 
boundaries of this ESU should be revised or that the ESU membership of 
existing hatchery populations should be changed.
    Ongoing efforts to protect OC coho salmon and their habitat, as 
described in the previous section, are likely to provide some benefit 
to this ESU. Considered collectively, however, these efforts do not 
comprehensively address the threats to the OC coho salmon ESU from 
past, ongoing, and future land management activities and global climate 
change.
    Based on the best scientific and commercial information available, 
including the BRT report, we conclude that the OC coho salmon ESU is 
not presently in danger of extinction, but is likely to become so in 
the foreseeable future throughout all of its range. Factors supporting 
a conclusion that this ESU is not presently in danger of extinction 
include: (1) Abundance of naturally spawned returns has increased 
recently; (2) this ESU remains well distributed throughout its 
historical range from just south of the Columbia River to north of Cape 
Blanco, Oregon; (3) each one of the five major

[[Page 35770]]

geographical areas comprising this ESU contains at least one relatively 
healthy population; (4) threats posed by overharvest and hatchery 
practices have largely been addressed; and (5) spawning escapement 
levels have improved considerably in recent years.
    Factors supporting a conclusion that the DPS is likely to become in 
danger of extinction in the foreseeable future include: (1) After 
considering the results of the DSS, other information about the ESU's 
viability, and threats, the BRT found the OC coho salmon ESU to be at 
least at a moderate risk of extinction; (2) abundance of naturally 
spawned returns is one tenth of historic levels of abundance; (3) the 
BRT's analysis of freshwater habitat trends for the Oregon coast found 
little evidence for an overall improving trend in freshwater habitat 
conditions since the mid-1990s, and evidence of negative trends in some 
strata; (4) current protective efforts are insufficient to provide for 
freshwater habitat conditions capable of producing a viable ESU; (5) 
there is ongoing uncertainty about the future management of OC coho 
salmon habitat, particularly forested habitat on state, Federal, and 
private lands; (6) global climate change is likely to result in further 
degradation of freshwater habitat conditions and poor marine survival; 
(7) there are still numerous primary threats to OC coho persistence, 
including legacy effects from past forest management, poor marine 
conditions, agricultural activities and urban development in high 
intrinsic potential habitat, global climate change, etc.; and (8) this 
ESU faces a long and growing list of secondary threats including 
invasions of exotic organisms, poor water quality, and land-use 
conversion. Therefore, we retain the threatened listing for the OC coho 
salmon ESU.

Prohibitions and Protective Measures

    Section 9 of the ESA prohibits the take of endangered species. The 
term ``take'' means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, 
trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct 
(16 U.S.C. 1532(19)). In the case of threatened species, ESA section 
4(d) requires us to issue regulations we deem necessary and advisable 
for the conservation of the species. Such regulations may include 
extending section 9 take prohibitions. On February 11, 2008, we issued 
final protective regulations under section 4(d) of the ESA for the OC 
coho salmon ESU (73 FR 7816). The new information evaluated in this 
review of the status of the OC coho ESU does not alter our 
determinations regarding those portions of our February 11, 2008, rule 
establishing ESA section 4(d) protections for the species. Accordingly, 
those protective regulations remain in effect.

Other Protective ESA Provisions

    Section 7(a)(4) of the ESA requires that Federal agencies confer 
with NMFS on any actions likely to jeopardize the continued existence 
of a species proposed for listing and on actions likely to result in 
the destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. 
For listed species, section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to ensure 
that activities they authorize, fund, or conduct are not likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or to destroy or 
adversely modify its critical habitat. If a proposed Federal action may 
affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible 
Federal agency must enter into consultation with NMFS or the US Fish 
and Wildlife Service, as appropriate. Examples of Federal actions 
likely to affect salmon include authorized land management activities 
of the Forest Service and the BLM, as well as operation of 
hydroelectric and storage projects of the Bureau of Reclamation and the 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Such activities include timber sales and 
harvest, permitting livestock grazing, hydroelectric power generation, 
and flood control. Federal actions, including the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers section 404 permitting activities under the Clean Water Act, 
permitting activities under the River and Harbors Act, Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission licenses for non-Federal development and 
operation of hydropower, and Federal salmon hatcheries, may also 
require consultation. We have a long history of consultation with these 
agencies on the OC coho salmon ESU.
    ESA sections 10(a)(1)(A) and 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA provide NMFS 
with authority to grant exceptions to the ESA's ``take'' prohibitions. 
Section 10(a)(1)(A) scientific research and enhancement permits may be 
issued to entities (Federal and non-Federal) conducting research that 
involves a directed take of listed species. A directed take refers to 
the intentional take of listed species. We have issued section 
10(a)(1)(A) research/enhancement permits for currently listed ESUs for 
a number of activities, including trapping and tagging, electroshocking 
to determine population presence and abundance, removal of fish from 
irrigation ditches, and collection of adult fish for artificial 
propagation programs. Section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permits may 
be issued to non-Federal entities performing activities that may 
incidentally take listed species. The types of activities potentially 
requiring a section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permit include the 
operation and release of artificially propagated fish by state or 
privately operated and funded hatcheries, state or academic research 
that may incidentally take listed species, the implementation of state 
fishing regulations, logging, road building, grazing, and diverting 
water into private lands. These ``Other Protective ESA Provisions'' of 
the February 11, 2008, rule remain in effect.

Effective Date of the Final Listing Determination

    Since the OC coho salmon ESU is currently listed as threatened and 
this final rule is conformation of that finding, this rule is effective 
immediately.

Critical Habitat

    Section 4(a)(3) of the ESA requires that, to the extent practicable 
and determinable, critical habitat be designated concurrently with the 
listing of a species. Designation of critical habitat must be based on 
the best scientific data available and must take into consideration the 
economic, national security, and other relevant impacts of specifying 
any particular area as critical habitat.
    On February 11, 2008, we designated critical habitat for the OC 
coho salmon ESU (73 FR 7816). The new information we evaluated in this 
review of the status of the OC coho ESU does not alter our 
determinations regarding those portions of our February 11, 2008 rule 
designating critical habitat for the species. Accordingly, this 
critical habitat designation remains in effect.

Classification

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

    ESA listing decisions are exempt from the requirements to prepare 
an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under the 
NEPA. See NOAA Administrative Order 216 6.03(e)(1) and Pacific Legal 
Foundation v. Andrus 657 F2d 829 (6th Cir. 1981). Thus, we have 
determined that this final listing determination for the OC coho salmon 
ESU is exempt from the requirements of the NEPA of 1969.

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, Regulatory Flexibility Act and Paperwork 
Reduction Act

    As noted in the Conference Report on the 1982 amendments to the 
ESA,

[[Page 35771]]

economic impacts cannot be considered when assessing the status of a 
species. Therefore, the economic analysis requirements of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act are not applicable to the listing process. 
In addition, this rule is exempt from review under E.O. 12866. This 
final rule does not contain a collection-of-information requirement for 
the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

E.O. 13084--Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal 
Governments

    E.O. 13084 requires that if NMFS issues a regulation that 
significantly or uniquely affects the communities of Indian tribal 
governments and imposes substantial direct compliance costs on those 
communities, NMFS must consult with those governments or the Federal 
Government must provide the funds necessary to pay the direct 
compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments. This final rule 
does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on the communities 
of Indian tribal governments. Accordingly, the requirements of section 
3(b) of E.O. 13084 do not apply to this final rule. Nonetheless, we 
will continue to inform potentially affected tribal governments, 
solicit their input, and coordinate on future management actions.

E.O. 13132--Federalism

    E.O. 13132 requires agencies to take into account any federalism 
impacts of regulations under development. It includes specific 
directives for consultation in situations where a regulation will 
preempt state law or impose substantial direct compliance costs on 
state and local governments (unless required by statute). Neither of 
those circumstances is applicable to this final rule. In keeping with 
the intent of the Administration and Congress to provide continuing and 
meaningful dialogue on issues of mutual state and Federal interest, the 
proposed rule was provided to Oregon State and the state was invited to 
comment. We have conferred with the State of Oregon in the course of 
assessing the status of the OC coho salmon ESU, and have considered and 
incorporated their comments and recommendations into this final 
determination where applicable.

References

    A list of references cited in this notice is available upon request 
(see ADDRESSES) or via the Internet at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov. 
Additional information, including agency reports and written comments, 
is also available at this Internet address.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 223

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, 
Transportation.

    Dated: June 13, 2011.
John Oliver,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 223 is amended 
as follows:

PART 223--THREATENED MARINE AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES

0
1. The authority citation for part 223 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  16 U.S.C. 1531 1543; subpart B, Sec.  223.201-202 
also issued under 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 5503(d) for 
Sec.  223.206(d)(9) et seq.


0
2. In Sec.  223.102, in the table, revise paragraph (c)(24) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  223.102  Enumeration of threatened marine and anadromous species.

    (c) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Species \1\                                                                     Citation(s) for
----------------------------------------------                                  Citation(s) for      critical
                                                        Where listed                listing          habitat
         Common name          Scientific name                                  determination(s)   designation(s)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
(24) Oregon Coast Coho        Oncorhynchus     U.S.A., OR, all naturally       73 FR 7816; Feb   73 FR 7816; Feb
 salmon.                       kisutch.         spawned populations of coho     11, 2008;         11, 2008.
                                                salmon in Oregon coastal        [Insert FR
                                                streams south of the Columbia   citation; June
                                                River and north of Cape         16, 2011].
                                                Blanco, including the Cow
                                                Creek (ODFW stock 37) coho hatchery program.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Species includes taxonomic species, subspecies, distinct population segments (DPSs) (for a policy statement,
  see 61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996), and evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) (for a policy statement, see 56
  FR 58612, November 20, 1991).

[FR Doc. 2011-15080 Filed 6-17-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P?>