Endangered and Threatened Species; Threatened Status for Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) of Coho Salmon

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 227

[Docket No. 950407093-6298-03; I.D. 012595A]

Endangered and Threatened Species; Threatened Status for Southern

Oregon/Northern California Coast Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU)

of Coho Salmon

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The NMFS is issuing a final determination that the Southern

Oregon/Northern California Coast Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU)

of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) is a ``species'' under the

Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended, and is being listed

as threatened. Coho salmon populations are very depressed in this ESU,

currently numbering less than 10,000 naturally-produced adults. The

threats to this ESU are numerous and varied. Several human-caused

factors, including habitat degradation, harvest, and artificial

propagation, exacerbate the adverse effects of natural environmental

variability brought about by drought, floods, and poor ocean

conditions. NMFS has determined that existing regulatory mechanisms are

either inadequate or not implemented well enough to conserve this ESU.

While conservation efforts are underway for some populations in this

ESU, they are not considered sufficient to change the likelihood that

the ESU as a whole will become endangered in the foreseeable future.

NMFS will issue shortly protective regulations under section 4(d) of

the ESA, which will apply section 9(a) prohibitions to this ESU, with

certain exceptions. NMFS does not expect those regulations to become

effective before July 1, 1997.

NMFS has further determined that the Oregon Coast ESU does not

warrant listing at this time. Accordingly, NMFS will consider the

Oregon Coast coho salmon ESU to be a candidate species in 3 years (or

earlier if warranted by new information).

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 5, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Garth Griffin, NMFS, Northwest Region, Protected Species

Program, 525 N.E. Oregon St., Suite 500, Portland, OR 97232-2737; Craig

Wingert, NMFS, Southwest Region, Protected Species Management Division,

501 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213; or Joe Blum,

NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver

Spring, MD 20910.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Garth Griffin at (503) 231-2005; Craig

Wingert at (310) 980-4021; or Joe Blum at (301) 713-1401.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Species Background

The coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) is an anadromous salmonid

species that was historically distributed throughout the North Pacific

Ocean from central California to Point Hope, AK, through the Aleutian

Islands, and from the Anadyr River, Russia, south to Hokkaido, Japan.

Historically, this species probably inhabited most coastal streams in

Washington, Oregon, and northern and central California. Some

populations, now extinct, are believed to have migrated hundreds of

miles inland to spawn in tributaries of the upper Columbia River in

Washington and the Snake River in Idaho.

Coho salmon on the west coast of the contiguous United States and

much of British Columbia generally exhibit a relatively simple 3-year

life cycle. Adults typically begin their freshwater spawning migration

in the late summer and fall, spawn by mid-winter, and then die. The run

and spawning times vary between and within populations. Depending on

river temperatures, eggs incubate in ``redds'' (gravel nests excavated

by spawning females) for 1.5 to 4 months before hatching as ``alevins''

(a larval life stage dependent on food stored in a yolk sac). Following

yolk sac absorption, alevins emerge from the gravel as young juveniles

or ``fry'' and begin actively feeding. Juveniles rear in fresh water

for up to 15 months, then migrate to the ocean as ``smolts'' in the

spring. Coho salmon typically spend 2 growing seasons in the ocean

before returning to their natal stream to spawn as 3 year-olds. Some

precocious males, called ``jacks,'' return to spawn after only 6 months

at sea.

During this century, indigenous, naturally-reproducing populations

of coho salmon have been extirpated in nearly all Columbia River

tributaries and they are in decline in numerous coastal streams

throughout Washington, Oregon, and California. NMFS'' coho salmon

status review identified six distinct population segments (i.e., ESUs)

in Washington, Oregon, and California and noted that natural runs in

all ESUs are substantially below historical levels (Weitkamp, et al.

1995). At least 33 populations have been identified by state agencies

and conservation groups as being at moderate or high risk of

extinction. In general, the impacts on West Coast coho salmon stocks

decrease geographically from south to north, with the central

California stocks being in the worst condition.

This Federal Register document focuses on listing determinations

for two coho salmon ESUs--the Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast

ESU and the Oregon Coast ESU--both of which were proposed as threatened

species under the ESA on July 25, 1995 (60 FR 38011). The Southern

Oregon/Northern California Coast ESU is composed of populations between

Punta Gorda (CA) and Cape Blanco (OR). In the 1940s, estimated

abundance of coho salmon in this ESU ranged from 150,000 to 400,000

naturally spawning fish. Today, coho populations in this ESU are very

depressed, currently numbering approximately 10,000 naturally produced

adults. Populations in the California portion of this ESU could be less

than 6 percent of their abundance during the 1940s (CDFG, 1994), while

Oregon populations have exhibited a similar but slightly less severe

decline (ODFW, 1995); however, it is important to note that population

abundance in the Rogue River Basin has increased substantially over the

last 3 years (NMFS, 1997a). The bulk of current coho salmon production

in this ESU consists of stocks from the Rogue River, Klamath River,

Trinity River, and Eel River basins. Smaller basins known to support

coho salmon include the Elk River in Oregon, and the Smith and Mad

Rivers and Redwood Creek in California.

The Oregon Coast ESU is composed of populations between Cape Blanco

and the Columbia River. More than one million coho salmon are believed

to have returned to Oregon coastal rivers in the early 1900s

(Lichatowich, 1989), the bulk of them originating in this ESU. Current

production is estimated to be less than 10 percent of historical

levels. Spawning in this ESU is distributed over a relatively large

number of basins, both large and small, with the bulk of the production

being skewed to the southern portion of its range. There, the coastal

lake systems (e.g., the Tenmile, Tahkenitch, and Siltcoos basins) and

the Coos and Coquille Rivers have been particularly productive for coho

salmon.

[[Page 24589]]

Previous Federal ESA Actions Related to Coho Salmon

The history of petitions received regarding coho salmon is

summarized in the proposed rule published on July 25, 1995 (60 FR

38011). The most comprehensive petition was submitted by the Pacific

Rivers Council and 22 co-petitioners on October 20, 1993. In response

to that petition, NMFS assessed the best available scientific and

commercial data, including technical information from Pacific Salmon

Biological and Technical Committees (PSBTCs) in Washington, Oregon, and

California. The PSBTCs consisted of scientists with technical expertise

relevant to coho salmon. They were drawn from Federal, state, and local

resource agencies, Indian tribes, industries, professional societies,

and public interest groups. NMFS also established a Biological Review

Team (BRT), composed of staff from its Northwest Fisheries Science

Center and Southwest Regional Office, which conducted a coastwide

status review for coho salmon (Weitkamp et al., 1995).

Based on the results of the BRT report, and after considering other

information and existing conservation measures, NMFS published a

proposed listing determination (60 FR 38011, July 25, 1995) that

identified six ESUs of coho salmon ranging from southern British

Columbia to central California. The Olympic Peninsula ESU was found not

to warrant listing and the Oregon Coast ESU, Southern Oregon/Northern

California Coast ESU, and Central California Coast ESU were proposed

for listing as threatened species. The Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia

ESU and the lower Columbia River/southwest Washington Coast ESU were

identified as candidates for listing. NMFS is now in the process of

completing status reviews for these latter two ESUs; results and

findings for both will be announced in an upcoming Federal Register

notice.

On October 31, 1996, NMFS published a final rule listing the

Central California Coast ESU as a threatened species (61 FR 56138).

Concurrently, NMFS announced that a 6-month extension was warranted for

the Oregon Coast and Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast ESUs (61

FR 56211) due to the fact that there was substantial disagreement

regarding the sufficiency and accuracy of the available data relevant

to the listing determination (pursuant to section 4(b)(6)(B)(i) of the

ESA). The NMFS has now completed a review of additional data pertaining

to these two ESUs and has updated its west coast coho salmon status

review (NMFS, 1997a).

Summary of Comments Regarding the Oregon Coast and Southern Oregon/

Northern California Coast ESUs

The NMFS held six public hearings in California, Oregon, and

Washington to solicit comments on the proposed listing determination

for west coast coho salmon. Sixty-three individuals presented testimony

at the hearings. During the 90-day public comment period, NMFS received

174 written comments on the proposed rule from state, Federal, and

local government agencies, Indian tribes, non-governmental

organizations, the scientific community, and other individuals. In

accordance with agency policy (59 FR 34270, July 1, 1994), NMFS also

requested a scientific peer review of the proposed rule, receiving

responses from two of the seven reviewers. A summary of major public

comments pertaining to the Oregon and Northern California coho salmon

ESUs (including issues raised by peer reviewers) is presented below,

grouped by issue categories.

Issue 1: Sufficiency and Accuracy of Scientific Information and

Analyses

Comment: Many individuals urged NMFS to use the best available

scientific information in reaching a final determination regarding the

risk of extinction that the coho salmon ESUs face. Comments received

from a peer reviewer, as well as from scientists representing state

fish and wildlife agencies, tribes, and the private sector, disputed

the sufficiency and accuracy of data that NMFS employed in its proposed

rule to list west coast coho salmon. In particular, they questioned the

data relating to the ESUs in Oregon and California. The primary areas

of disagreement concerned data relevant to risk assessment and NMFS'

evaluation of existing protective measures.

Response: The ESA requires that listing determinations be made on

the basis of a population's status which is determined by using the

best available scientific and commercial data, with subsequent

consideration being given to state and foreign efforts to protect the

species. In response to the comments summarized above, NMFS published a

document (61 FR 56211, October 31, 1996) extending the final listing

determination deadline for the Oregon Coast and Southern Oregon/

Northern California Coast ESUs for 6 months to solicit, collect, and

analyze additional data. During this period, NMFS met with fisheries

co-managers and received new and updated information on coho salmon in

British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, and California. This was deemed

critical to assessing the current status of coho salmon ESUs. This new

information, more fully described in a report from the NMFS BRT (NMFS,

1997a), generally consists of updates of existing data series, new data

series, and new analyses of various factors. NMFS also received

analyses and conservation measures associated with the OCSRI (OCSRI,

1996 and 1997). The OCSRI components relating to hatchery and harvest

measures were assessed by the BRT (NMFS, 1997a), while remaining

measures were assessed by the NMFS Habitat program (NMFS, 1997b).

NMFS believes that information contained in the agency's 1995 west

coast coho salmon status review (Weitkamp et al., 1995), together with

more recent information collected by NMFS scientists and information

provided to NMFS by other sources since the proposed listing

determination was published, represent the best scientific information

presently available for coho salmon populations on the Oregon and

California coast. NMFS believes that this information is sufficient and

accurate, and, in accordance with the ESA, finds it both mandatory and

appropriate to make a listing determination at this time. If

substantial new scientific information indicates a change in the status

of either coho salmon ESU, NMFS will reconsider the present listing

determinations.

Comment: Some commenters felt that NMFS should establish explicit

listing criteria common to all coho salmon ESUs, and noted that such

criteria would lead to different conclusions regarding extinction risk.

Response: At this time, there is no accepted methodology nor

explicit listing criteria for determining the likelihood of extinction

for Pacific salmon. In November 1996, NMFS' Northwest and Southwest

Fisheries Science Centers sponsored a symposium/workshop on ``Assessing

Extinction Risk for West Coast Salmon'' (Seattle, November 13-15,

1996). The objective of the workshop was to evaluate scientific methods

for assessing various factors contributing to extinction risk for

Pacific salmon populations. A preliminary summary of key

recommendations was considered by the BRT during the coho salmon status

review. Most of these recommendations require long-term development of

improved methods, and thus, could not be substantially applied in this

review.

[[Page 24590]]

In recent months, NMFS has also evaluated three different

population simulation models for coho salmon developed by members of

the OCSRI Science Team. The preliminary results of these viability

models provide a wide range of results, with one model suggesting that

most Oregon coastal stocks cannot sustain themselves at the ocean

survival rates that have been observed in the last 5 years (even in the

absence of harvest) and another suggesting that stocks are highly

resilient and would be at significant risk of extinction only if

habitat degradation continues into the future (more detailed

evaluations of these models are presented in NMFS' status review update

(NMFS, 1997a)). While these models have potential heuristic value, NMFS

is presently reluctant to employ them to forecast extinction risk for

coho salmon. Instead, NMFS has relied on its traditional assessment

method, which employs a variety of information types to evaluate the

level of risk faced by an ESU. These include: (1) Absolute numbers of

fish and their spatial and temporal distribution; (2) current abundance

in relation to historical abundance and carrying capacity of the

habitat; (3) trends in abundance, based on indices such as dam or redd

counts or on estimates of spawner-recruit ratios; (4) natural and

human-influenced factors that cause variability in survival and

abundance; (5) possible threats to genetic integrity (e.g., fisheries

and interactions between hatchery and natural fish); and (6) recent

events (e.g., a drought or a change in management) that have

predictable short-term effects on the ESU's abundance. These

considerations and the approaches to evaluating them are described in

more detail in Weitkamp et al. (1995) and have been used by NMFS in

other salmon status reviews. At this time, NMFS believes that an

integrated assessment using these types of information is both

desirable and appropriate for determining whether a Pacific salmon

species is likely to become endangered or extinct.

Issue 2: Description and Status of the Southern Oregon/Northern

California Coast and Oregon Coast Coho Salmon ESUs

Comment: A few commenters disputed NMFS' conclusions regarding the

geographic boundaries for these ESUs; those who did, believed that NMFS

should reduce the size/number of populations that constitute ESUs. One

commenter believed that the Umpqua River basin (in the Oregon Coast

ESU) should be considered a separate ESU and that listing was not

warranted.

Response: The NMFS has published a policy describing how it would

apply the ESA definition of a ``species'' to anadromous salmonid

species (56 FR 58612, November 20, 1991). More recently, NMFS and the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) published a joint policy,

consistent with NMFS' policy, regarding the definition of ``distinct

population segments'' (61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996). The earlier

policy is more detailed and applies specifically to Pacific salmonids

and, therefore, was used for this determination. This policy indicates

that one or more naturally reproducing salmonid populations will be

considered to be distinct and, hence, species under the ESA, if they

represent an ESU of the biological species. To be considered an ESU, a

population must satisfy two criteria: (1) It must be reproductively

isolated from other population units of the same species, and (2) it

must represent an important component in the evolutionary legacy of the

biological species. The first criterion, reproductive isolation, need

not be absolute but must have been strong enough to permit

evolutionarily important differences to occur in different population

units. The second criterion is met if the population contributes

substantially to the ecological or genetic diversity of the species as

a whole. Guidance on applying this policy is contained in a scientific

paper entitled: ``Pacific Salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) and the Definition

of `Species' under the Endangered Species Act.'' It is also found in a

NOAA Technical Memorandum: ``Definition of `Species' Under the

Endangered Species Act: Application to Pacific Salmon.'' NMFS' proposed

listing determination and rule (60 FR 38011, July 25, 1995) for west

coast coho salmon and the west coast coho salmon status review

(Weitkamp et al., 1995) describe the genetic, ecological, and life

history characteristics, as well as human-caused genetic changes, that

NMFS assessed to determine the number and geographic extent of the coho

salmon ESUs.

With respect to the Umpqua River, NMFS recognizes that physical and

hydrological conditions in this basin are unique (i.e., it is by far

the largest basin in the Oregon Coast ESU, and it is the only basin in

the ESU to cut through the Coast Range to drain the Cascade Mountains).

However, NMFS believes that application of the agency's policy

(described above) justifies including Umpqua River coho salmon

populations as an integral part of the Oregon Coast ESU. Ocean

distribution patterns (based on marine recovery locations of fish

tagged with coded wire tags) for coho salmon released from this ESU

(including releases from the Umpqua stocks) are distinctly different

from the distribution patterns for coho salmon released from ESUs to

the north and south. Thus, NMFS concludes that the ocean migration

patterns of the Umpqua stocks are similar to the rest of the stocks in

the ESU. In addition, genetic data that NMFS reviewed (Weitkamp et al.,

1995) indicate that genetic discontinuities are particularly pronounced

at Cape Blanco and the mouth of the Columbia River. While there is

evidence of genetic heterogeneity within this area (e.g., the Oregon

Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) has identified the Umpqua River

basin as one of six distinct gene conservation groups of coho salmon),

NMFS believes that this ESU, as a whole, which includes the Umpqua

stocks, exhibits a reasonable degree of reproductive isolation from the

other two ESUs that border it.

Comment: Most commenters expressed an opinion as to whether listing

was warranted for these and other coho salmon ESUs, although few

provided substantive new information relevant to making risk

assessments. The majority of comments stated that both ESUs should be

listed as threatened or endangered, while relatively few stated that

listing was not warranted.

Response: Recent Status of the Southern Oregon/Northern California

Coast ESU: The Estimates of natural population abundance in the ESU

continue to be based on very limited information, but the ESU has

clearly undergone a dramatic decline. Favorable indicators include

recent increases in abundance in the Rogue River and the presence of

natural populations in both large and small basins within the ESU--

factors that may provide some buffer against the ESU's extinction.

However, large hatchery programs, particularly in the Klamath/Trinity

basin, raise serious concerns about effects on, and sustainability of,

natural populations. For example, available information indicates that

virtually all of the naturally spawning fish in the Trinity River are

first-generation hatchery fish. Several hatcheries in the California

portion of this ESU have used exotic stocks extensively in the past, in

contrast to Cole Rivers Hatchery in Oregon which has only released

Rogue River stock into the Rogue River. New data relating to coho

salmon presence/absence in northern California streams that

historically supported coho salmon are even more disturbing than

earlier

[[Page 24591]]

results, indicating that a smaller percentage of streams in this ESU

contain coho salmon than did during an earlier study. However, it is

unclear whether these new data represent actual trends in local

extinctions, or if they are simply biased by sampling methods.

In the Rogue River basin, natural spawner abundance in 1996 was

slightly above levels found in 1994 and 1995. Abundances in the most

recent 3 years are all substantially higher than they were in 1989-93,

and are comparable to counts at Gold Ray Dam (upper Rogue) in the

1940s. Estimated return ratios for 1996 are the highest on record, but

this may be influenced by an underestimate of parental spawners. The

Rogue River run included an estimated 60 percent hatchery fish in 1996;

this figure is comparable to the percentages found in recent years. The

majority of these hatchery fish return to Cole Rivers Hatchery, but

NMFS has no estimate of the actual number that stray into natural

habitat.

Response: Recent Status of the Oregon Coast ESU: While this ESU's

current abundance is substantially less than it was historically,

recent trends indicate that spawner escapements in this ESU are stable

or increasing as a likely result of significant harvest restrictions

(or other factors). Although escapement has been increasing for the ESU

as a whole (1996 estimate of ESU-wide escapement indicates an

approximately four-fold increase since 1990), recruitment and recruits-

to-spawner ratios have remained low. While recent natural escapement

has been estimated to be on the order of 50,000 fish per year in this

ESU (reaching approximately 80,000 fish in 1996), this has been

coincident with drastic reductions in harvest. Pre-fishery recruitment

was higher in 1996 than in either 1994 or 1995, but it still exhibits a

relatively flat trend since 1990. When looked at on a finer geographic

scale, the northern Oregon coast still has very poor escapement, the

north-central coast is mixed with strong increases in some streams but

continued poor escapement in others, and the south-central coast

continues to have increasing escapement.

In contrast to most of the 1980s, spawner-to-spawner ratios in this

ESU have remained at or above replacement since 1990 (due primarily to

sharp reductions in harvest). This represents the longest period of

sustained replacement observed in the past 20 years. It is notable that

this sustained replacement has occurred during a period of low

recruitment and primarily poor-to-fair ocean conditions. However,

significant concerns remain regarding the declining trend in this ESU's

productivity.

Issue 3: Factors Contributing to the Decline of West Coast Coho Salmon

ESUs

Comment: Many commenters addressed factors contributing to the

decline of coho salmon. These included overharvest, predation by

pinnipeds, effects of artificial propagation, and the deterioration or

loss of freshwater and marine habitats. One peer reviewer and several

commenters believed that NMFS' assessment did not adequately consider

the large influence of natural environmental fluctuations. Some

commenters took exception to generalizations that NMFS made regarding

the various factors for decline and requested more detail on the

various factors so that recovery efforts could be appropriately

focussed.

Response: NMFS agrees with the commenters that many factors, past

and present, have contributed to the decline of coho salmon. The agency

also recognizes that natural environmental fluctuations have likely

played a large role in the species' recent declines. However, NMFS

believes that other human-induced impacts (e.g., from overharvest,

hatchery practices, and habitat modification) have been equally

significant and, moreover, have likely reduced the coho salmon

populations' resiliency in the face of adverse natural factors such as

drought and poor ocean conditions. Since the time of NMFS' proposed

listing, several documents have been produced that describe in more

detail the impacts of various factors contributing to the decline of

coho and other salmonids (NMFS, 1996a, 1997a, and 1997b; OCSRI 1997).

In addition, NMFS has developed a document titled ``Making Endangered

Species Act Determinations of Effect for Individual or Grouped Actions

at the Watershed Scale'' (NMFS, 1996b). This document presents

guidelines to facilitate and standardize determinations of ``effect''

under the ESA and includes a matrix for determining the condition of

various habitat parameters. This matrix is being implemented in several

northern California and Oregon coastal watersheds and is expected to

help guide efforts to define salmon risk factors and conservation

strategies throughout the west coast. A concise description of

information contained in these documents, as well as new information

provided by commenters, has been incorporated in the section below

titled ``Summary of Factors Affecting Coho Salmon.''

Issue 4: Adequacy of Existing Conservation Measures or Regulatory

Mechanisms

Comment: Many commenters expressed opinions regarding the adequacy

of existing conservation efforts or regulatory mechanisms. While many

thought that existing programs were sufficient to conserve coho salmon

(and hence avoid listing), others believed that efforts were either

inadequate, poorly implemented, or of uncertain benefit to the species.

Response: The regulatory mechanisms established by Federal, state,

tribal, and local governments provide the most effective and available

means to prevent a species from facing the peril of extinction. In its

proposed rule, NMFS concluded that existing measures were not

sufficient to offset population declines. Since that time, several

documents have been produced that describe in more detail the existing

conservation efforts for salmon in Oregon and California (NMFS, 1996a,

1996c, and 1997b; OCSRI, 1997). Moreover, the agency has reviewed a

variety of state and Federal conservation efforts (including regulatory

mechanisms) aimed at protecting coho salmon and their habitats in these

ESUs, and NMFS recognizes that significant conservation efforts have

been made by an array of government agencies and private groups in

California and Oregon. NMFS has also developed a document titled

``Coastal Salmon Conservation: Working Guidance for Comprehensive

Salmon Restoration Initiatives on the Pacific Coast'' (NMFS, 1996d).

This document was drafted to guide the Pacific Coast states, tribes,

and other entities in taking the initiative for coastal salmon

restoration; it also provides a framework for developing successful

salmon restoration strategies. Information that commenters provided

regarding existing regulatory mechanisms has been incorporated in the

sections below titled: ``Summary of Factors Affecting Coho Salmon, and

Efforts to Protect Oregon and California Coho Salmon.''

Issue 5: Information Received After the Close of the Comment Period

Comment: When the states of Oregon and California announced that

they were in the process of developing salmon restoration initiatives

(61 FR 56211, October 31, 1996), it generated considerable interest

among the general public. This was especially true for the OCSRI.

Between the time the August OCSRI draft was released and this Federal

Register document was written, NMFS received a great deal of

[[Page 24592]]

correspondence on this subject. Some of the mail was addressed to NMFS,

but much of it arrived in the form of courtesy copies of mailings sent

to the state. The majority of the comments NMFS received supported the

concept of a state restoration initiative, but they also expressed the

thought that NMFS should still provide the additional protections

afforded by a listing under the ESA.

Response: NMFS has considered this information and thanked as many

of these commenters as time has allowed, and, moreover, appreciates the

input it has received from the many comments that were submitted.

Summary of Factors Affecting Coho Salmon

Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA and NMFS listing regulations (50 CFR

part 424) set forth procedures for listing species. The Secretary of

Commerce (Secretary) must determine, through the regulatory process, if

a species is endangered or threatened based upon any one or a

combination of the following factors: (1) The present or threatened

destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (2)

overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or

educational purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4) inadequacy of

existing regulatory mechanisms; or (5) other natural or human-made

factors affecting its continued existence.

The factors threatening naturally-reproducing coho salmon

throughout its range are numerous and varied. For coho salmon

populations in California and Oregon, the present depressed condition

is the result of several long-standing, human-induced factors (e.g.,

habitat degradation, harvest, water diversions, and artificial

propagation) that serve to exacerbate the adverse effects of natural

environmental variability from such factors as drought, floods, and

poor ocean conditions.

As noted earlier, NMFS received numerous comments regarding the

relative importance of various factors contributing to the decline of

coho salmon. Several recent documents have been produced that describe

in more detail the impacts of various factors contributing to the

decline of coho and other salmonids (NMFS, 1996a, 1997a, and 1997b;

OCSRI, 1997). The following sections provide an overview of the various

risk factors and their role in the decline of Oregon and California

coho salmon.

A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment

of its Habitat or Range

NMFS, in conjunction with the State of Oregon, identified the

habitat factors for decline that have affected coho salmon. The factors

are: Channel morphology changes, substrate changes, loss of instream

roughness, loss of estuarine habitat, loss of wetlands, loss/

degradation of riparian areas, declines in water quality (e.g.,

elevated water temperatures, reduced dissolved oxygen, altered

biological communities, toxics, elevated pH, and altered stream

fertility), altered streamflows, fish passage impediments, elimination

of habitat, and direct take. Additional detail on each of these factors

for decline can be found in reports by NMFS (NMFS, 1996a, 1997a, and

1997b) and the State of Oregon (OCSRI, 1997).

The major activities responsible for the decline of coho salmon in

Oregon and California are logging, road building, grazing and mining

activities, urbanization, stream channelization, dams, wetland loss,

beaver trapping, water withdrawals and unscreened diversions for

irrigation. Many commenters expressed concern that these and other

habitat-related activities, if unchecked, could ultimately lead to the

ESUs' becoming endangered or extinct. The following discussion provides

an overview of the types of activities and conditions that adversely

affect coho salmon in coastal watersheds.

Numerous studies have demonstrated that land use activities

associated with logging, road construction, urban development, mining,

agriculture, and recreation have significantly altered the quantity and

quality of coho salmon habitat. Impacts of concern associated with

these activities include the following: Alteration of streambank and

channel morphology, alteration of ambient stream water temperatures,

alteration of the magnitude and timing of annual stream flow patterns,

elimination of spawning and rearing habitat, fragmentation of available

habitats, elimination of downstream recruitment of spawning gravels and

large woody debris, removal of riparian vegetation resulting in

increased stream bank erosion, and degradation of water quality (CDFG,

1965; Bottom et al., 1985; California Advisory Committee on Salmon and

Steelhead Trout, 1988; CDFG, 1991; Nehlsen et al., 1991; California

State Lands Commission, 1993; Wilderness Society, 1993; Bryant, 1994;

CDFG, 1994; Brown et al., 1994; Botkin et al., 1995; McEwan and

Jackson, 1996). Of particular concern is the increased sediment input

into spawning and rearing areas that results from loss of properly

functioning riparian areas, land management activities that occur on

unstable slopes, and certain agricultural practices. Further,

historical practices, such as the use of splash dams, widespread

removal of log jams, removal of snags from river channels, and

eradication of beaver have adversely modified fish habitat (Bottom et

al., 1985).

Agricultural practices have also contributed to the degradation of

salmonid habitat on the west coast through irrigation diversions,

overgrazing in riparian areas, and compaction of soils in upland areas

from livestock (Botkin et al., 1995; Spence et al., 1996). The vigor,

composition, and diversity of natural vegetation can be altered by

livestock grazing in and around riparian areas. This in turn can affect

the site's ability to control erosion, provide stability to stream

banks, and provide shade, cover, and nutrients to the stream.

Mechanical compaction can reduce the productivity of the soils

appreciably and cause bank slough and erosion. Mechanical bank damage

often leads to channel widening, lateral stream migration, increases in

water temperature, and excess sedimentation. Agricultural practices are

also a key producer of non-point source pollution which includes runoff

from livestock and tilled fields (nutrients and sediments) and

agricultural chemicals.

Urbanization has degraded coho salmon habitat through stream

channelization, floodplain drainage, and riparian damage (Botkin et

al., 1995). When watersheds are urbanized, problems may result simply

because structures are placed in the path of natural runoff processes,

or because the urbanization itself has induced changes in the

hydrologic regime. In almost every point that urbanization activity

touches the watershed, point source and nonpoint source pollution

occurs. Water infiltration is reduced due to an increase in impervious

surfaces. As a result, runoff from the watershed is flashier, with

increased flood hazard (Leopold, 1968). Flood control and land drainage

schemes may concentrate runoff, resulting in increased bank erosion

which causes a loss of riparian vegetation and undercut banks and

eventually causes widening and down-cutting of the stream channel.

Sediments washed from the urban areas contain trace metals such as

copper, cadmium, zinc, and lead (CSLC, 1993). These, together with

pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, gasoline, and

[[Page 24593]]

other petroleum products, contaminate drainage waters and harm aquatic

life necessary for coho salmon survival. The California State Water

Resources Control Board (CSWRCB, 1991) reported that nonpoint source

pollution is the cause of 50 to 80 percent of impairment to water

bodies in California.

Forestry has degraded coho salmon habitat through removal and

disturbance of natural vegetation, disturbance and compaction of soils,

construction of roads, and installation of culverts. Timber harvest

activities can result in sediment delivered to streams through mass

wasting and surface erosion that can elevate the level of fine

sediments in spawning gravels and fill the substrate interstices

inhabited by invertebrates. Where logging in the riparian areas occurs,

inputs of leaf litter, terrestrial insects, and large woody debris to

the stream are reduced. Loss of large woody debris, combined with

alteration of hydrology and sediment transport, reduces complexity of

stream micro-and macrohabitats and causes loss of pools and channel

sinuosity. The structure of the biological community may also change.

This includes fish assemblages and diversity as well as timing of life

history events (Spence et al., 1996).

Depletion and storage of natural flows have drastically altered

natural hydrological cycles, especially in California and southern

Oregon rivers and streams. Alteration of streamflows has increased

juvenile salmonid mortality for a variety of reasons: Migration delay

resulting from insufficient flows or habitat blockages; loss of usable

habitat due to dewatering and blockage; stranding of fish resulting

from rapid flow fluctuations; entrainment of juveniles into unscreened

or poorly screened diversions; and increased juvenile mortality

resulting from increased water temperatures (California Advisory

Committee on Salmon and Steelhead Trout, 1988; CDFG, 1991; CBFWA, 1991;

Bergren and Filardo, 1991; Palmisano et al., 1993; Reynolds et al.,

1993; Chapman et al., 1994; Cramer et al., 1995; Botkin et al., 1995).

In addition, reduced flows degrade or diminish fish habitats via

increased deposition of fine sediments in spawning gravels, decreased

recruitment of new spawning gravels, and encroachment of riparian and

non-endemic vegetation into spawning and rearing areas.

Important elements of water quality include water temperatures

within the range that corresponds with migration, rearing and emergence

needs of fish and the aquatic organisms upon which they depend (Sweeney

and Vannote, 1978; Quinn and Tallman, 1987). Desired conditions for

coho salmon include an abundance of cool (generally in the range of

11.8 degrees C to 14.6 degrees C), well oxygenated water that is

present year-round, free of excessive suspended sediments and other

pollutants that could limit primary production and benthic invertebrate

abundance and diversity (Cordone and Kelley, 1961; Reiser and Bjornn,

1979; Lloyd et al., 1987).

There are approximately 18,137 miles (30,228 km) of streams in the

coastal basins of Oregon. Of that number, 6,086 stream miles (10,143

km) (33.5 percent) have been assessed by Oregon Department of

Environmental Quality (DEQ) for compliance with existing water quality

standards using available water quality information. Of the 6,086

stream miles assessed (10,143 km), 3,035 stream miles (5,058 km) (49.9

percent) were found to be water quality limited, and 2,345 stream miles

(3,908 km)(38.5 percent) need additional data or were of potential

concern. Only 706 stream miles (1,177 km)(11.6 percent) of those

assessed were found to be meeting all state water quality standards

(OCSRI, 1997).

Eighteen water bodies in northern California, including eight

within the range of the Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast ESU,

have been designated as impaired by the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) under section 303(d) of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA). These

eight river basins include the Mattole, Eel, Van Duzen, Mad, Shasta,

Scott, Klamath, and Trinity Rivers. The primary factors for listing

these river basins as impaired are excessive sediment load and elevated

water temperatures.

Although individual management activities by themselves may not

cause significant harm to salmonid habitats, incrementally and

collectively, they may degrade habitat and cause long-term declines in

fish abundance (Bisson et al., 1992). Changes in sediment dynamics,

streamflow, and water temperature are not just local problems

restricted to a particular reach of a stream, but problems that can

have adverse cumulative effects throughout the entire downstream basin

(Sedell and Swanson, 1984; Grant, 1988). For example, increased erosion

in headwaters, combined with reduced sediment storage capacity in small

streams, from loss of stable instream large woody debris (LWD), can

overwhelm larger streams with sediment (Bisson et al., 1992). Likewise,

increased water temperature in headwater streams may not harm salmonids

there but can contribute to downstream warming (Bisson et al., 1987;

Bjornn and Reiser, 1991).

The most pervasive cumulative effect of past forest practices on

habitats for anadromous salmonids has been an overall reduction in

habitat complexity (Bisson et al., 1992), from loss of multiple habitat

components. Habitat complexity has declined principally because of

reduced size and frequency of pools due to filling with sediment and

loss of LWD (Reeves et al., 1993; Ralph et al., 1994). However, there

has also been a significant loss of off-channel rearing habitats (e.g.,

side channels, riverine ponds, backwater sloughs) important for

juvenile salmon production, particularly coho salmon (Peterson, 1982).

Cumulative habitat simplification has caused a widespread reduction in

salmonid diversity throughout California, Oregon, and the region.

B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or

Education Purposes

Coho salmon have historically been a staple of Pacific Northwest

and northern California Indian tribes and have been targeted in

recreational and commercial fisheries since the early 1800s (Nickelson

et al., 1992). Coho salmon harvested by California Native American

tribes in the northern California portion of the Southern Oregon/

Northern California Coast ESU is primarily incidental to larger chinook

salmon subsistence fisheries in the Klamath and Trinity Rivers; in

neither basin is tribal harvest considered to be a major factor for the

decline of coho salmon. The recent estimated Yurok tribal net harvest

of coho salmon in the Klamath River was 27 in 1994, 660 in 1995, and

540 in 1996. The Yurok tribal fishery is managed annually under a

Harvest Management Plan adopted by the Tribal Council pursuant to the

authority of the Yurok Tribal Fishing Rights Ordinance. The Hoopa

Tribe's estimated net harvest of coho salmon from 1982-96 averaged 263

fish per year and ranged from a low of 25 fish in 1994 to a high of

1,115 fish in 1985. Harvest management practiced by the tribes is

conservative and has resulted in limited impacts on the coho salmon

stocks in the Klamath and Trinity Rivers.

Overfishing in non-tribal fisheries is believed to have been a

significant factor in the decline of coho salmon. Marine harvest in the

Oregon Coast and Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast ESUs occurs

primarily in nearshore waters off Oregon, and California (Weitkamp et

al., 1995). Coho

[[Page 24594]]

salmon landings off the California and Oregon coast ranged from 0.7 to

3.0 million in the 1970s, were consistently below 1 million in the

1980s, and averaged less than 0.4 million in the early 1990s prior to

closure of the fisheries in 1994 (PFMC, 1995).

Significant overfishing occurred from the time marine survival

turned poor for many stocks (ca. 1976) until the mid-1990s when harvest

was substantially curtailed. This overfishing compromised escapement

levels. Spawning escapement targets established for the Oregon Coastal

Natural (OCN) coast wide aggregate (comprised of all naturally produced

coho salmon from Oregon coastal streams) were rarely met over the past

2 decades. There are many reasons that escapement targets were not met,

including excessive harvests and difficulty in estimating the maximum

sustainable yield given extreme fluctuations in ocean productivity and

the inability to properly distinguish wild spawners from stray hatchery

fish.

Coho salmon stocks are managed by NMFS in conjunction with the

Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC), the states, and certain

tribes. Coho salmon ocean harvest is managed by setting escapement

goals for OCN coho salmon. This stock aggregate constitutes the largest

portion of naturally-produced coho salmon caught in ocean salmon

fisheries off California and Oregon (PFMC, 1993). The PFMC prohibited

the retention of coho salmon in both the commercial and recreational

salmon fisheries along the entire west coast in 1994. A similar action

prohibiting the retention of coho salmon in all salmon fisheries south

of Cape Falcon (on the northern Oregon coast) was implemented in 1995.

These actions were taken because of the depressed status of Oregon and

California coastal coho salmon stocks in 1994 and 1995 and are believed

to have immediately benefitted these stocks by increasing escapement.

New OCN coho salmon adult spawner escapement rebuilding criteria

and associated fishery management strategy for OCN are currently being

proposed by Oregon to the PFMC and NMFS and are described in more

detail in the OCSRI (1997). Key provisions of this management strategy

include: (1) Disaggregation of OCN stock into four components for

better management of weaker stock units; (2) setting new adult spawner

escapement rebuilding criteria for each component derived from a model

based on freshwater habitat assessment and production capability; and

(3) establishing future coho salmon fishery-related exploitation rates

under a more restrictive fishery management regime that allocates most

of future population increases to escapement.

Recreational fishing for coho salmon is pursued in numerous streams

throughout the Oregon and California coast when adults return on their

fall spawning migration. The contribution of coho salmon to the in-

river sport catch is unknown for most California watersheds, and losses

due to injury and mortality from incidental capture in other authorized

fisheries, principally steelhead, are also unknown. The California

Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) has monitored, with Trinity River

Basin Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act funding, angler harvest of coho

salmon in the Trinity River above Willow Creek with reward tags since

1977. In-river angler harvest estimates for coho salmon range from zero

in 1980 to a high of 3,368 in 1987, with an average of 598 coho salmon

harvested per year.

In the Oregon portion of the Southern Oregon/Northern California

Coast ESU, marked hatchery coho salmon are allowed to be harvested in

the Rogue River. All other recreational coho salmon fisheries in the

Oregon portion of this ESU are closed. In the Oregon Coast ESU,

recreational fisheries for coho salmon are limited to three rivers:

North Fork Nehalem River (primarily a hatchery run), Trask River, and

Yaquina River. Regulations for the latter two rivers allow only marked

hatchery fish to be kept. With the marking of all hatchery fish, the

Nehalem River recreational fishery will also be limited to harvest of

marked hatchery coho salmon in the near future.

Collection for scientific research and educational programs is

believed to have had little or no impact on coho salmon populations in

these ESUs. In both California and Oregon, most of the scientific

collection permits are issued to environmental consultants, Federal

resource agencies, and universities by the CDFG and the ODFW.

Regulation of take is controlled by conditioning individual permits.

The state fish and wildlife agencies require reporting of any coho

salmon taken incidentally to other monitoring activities; however, no

comprehensive total or estimate of coho salmon mortalities related to

scientific sampling is kept for watersheds in either state. Neither

CDFG (F. Reynolds, pers. comm.) nor ODFW (R. Temple, pers. comm.)

believe that mortalities, as regulated by the states' permitting

processes, are detrimental to coho salmon in California and Oregon.

C. Disease or Predation

Relative to effects of fishing, habitat degradation, and hatchery

practices, disease and predation are not believed to be major factors

contributing to the overall decline of coho salmon in California and

Oregon. However, disease and predation may have substantial impacts in

local areas.

Coho salmon are exposed to numerous bacterial, protozoan, viral,

and parasitic pathogens in freshwater and marine environments. Specific

diseases such as bacterial kidney disease (BKD), ceratomyxosis,

columnaris, furunculosis, infectious hematopoietic necrosis, redmouth

and black spot disease, Erythrocytic Inclusion Body Syndrome, whirling

disease, and others are present and known to affect salmon and

steelhead (Rucker et al., 1953; Wood, 1979; Leek, 1987; Cox, 1992;

Foott et al., 1994; Gould and Wedemeyer, undated). Very little current

or historical information exists to quantify prevalences and mortality

rates attributable to these diseases for coho salmon. However, studies

have shown that native fish tend to be less susceptible to these

pathogens than hatchery-reared fish (Buchanon et al., 1983; Sanders et

al., 1992).

Infectious disease is one of many factors that can influence adult

and juvenile survival (Buchanan et al., 1983). Disease may be

contracted by direct infection with waterborne pathogens or by

interbreeding with infected hatchery fish (Fryer and Sanders, 1981;

Evelyn et al., 1984 and 1986). Salmonids typically are exposed to a

variety of pathogens throughout their life; however, disease results

only when the complex interaction among host, pathogen, and environment

is altered.

Many natural and hatchery coho salmon populations throughout

California's coast have tested positive for Renibacterium salmoninarum,

the causative bacterium of BKD (Cox, 1992; Foott, 1992). For example,

in the Central California Coast ESU, the overall prevalence of BKD

measured by direct fluorescent antibody technique among Scott Creek

coho salmon was 100 percent (13/13 fish) and 95.5 percent (21/22 fish)

among San Lorenzo River coho salmon (Cox, 1992). The CDFG recently

initiated a treatment protocol to attempt to control BKD outbreaks in

hatchery fish released into the Russian River and Scott Creek (Cox,

1992). The impacts of this disease are subtle. Juvenile salmonids may

survive well in their journey downstream but may be unable to make

appropriate changes in kidney function for a successful

[[Page 24595]]

transition to sea water (Foott, 1992). Stress during migration may also

cause overt disease (Schreck, 1987). Water quantity and quality during

late summer is a critical factor in controlling disease epidemics. As

water quantity and quality diminishes, stress may trigger the onset of

these diseases in fish that are carrying the infectious agents (Holt et

al., 1975; Wood, 1979; Matthews et al., 1986; Maule et al., 1988).

Freshwater predation by salmonids and other fishes is not believed

to be a major factor contributing to the decline of coho salmon in the

Oregon Coast and Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast ESUs,

although it could be a factor for some individual populations. For

example, predation by exotic warmwater fish is believed to be a major

factor limiting the production in Tenmile Lake, formerly one of the

largest producers of coho salmon along the Oregon coast (Reimers,

1989). Higgins et al. (1992) and CDFG (1994) reported that Sacramento

River squawfish have been found occupying anadromous salmonid habitat

throughout the Eel River basin and are considered to be a serious

threat to native coho salmon. Avian predators have been shown to impact

some juvenile salmonids in freshwater and nearshore environments.

Ruggerone (1986) estimated that ring-billed gulls consumed 2 percent of

the salmon and steelhead trout passing Wanapum Dam, in the Columbia

River, during the spring smolt outmigration in 1982. Wood (1987)

estimated that the common merganser, a known freshwater predator of

juvenile salmonids, were able to consume 24 to 65 percent of coho

salmon production in coastal British Columbia streams. Known avian

predators in the nearshore marine environment include herons,

cormorants, and alcids (Allen, 1974). Cooper and Johnson (1992) and

Botkin et al. (1995) reported that marine mammal and avian predation

may occur on some local salmonid populations; however, they believed

that it was a minor factor in the decline of coastwide salmonid

populations. With the decrease in quality riverine and estuarine

habitats, increased predation by freshwater, avian, and marine

predators will occur. With the decrease in avoidance habitat (e.g.,

deep pools and estuaries, and undercut banks) and adequate migration

and rearing flows, predation may play a role in the reduction of some

localized coho salmon stocks.

California sea lions and Pacific harbor seals (which occur in most

estuaries and rivers where salmonid runs occur on the west coast) are

known predators of salmonids and their populations are increasing. This

raises concerns over the negative impacts of predation on small

salmonid populations, particularly when the pinnipeds co-occur with

depressed salmonid populations in estuaries and rivers during salmonid

migrations (NMFS, 1997c). The observations of steelhead predation by

California sea lions at the Ballard Locks in Seattle, WA, show that a

significant proportion (65 percent) of an entire salmonid run can be

consumed by sea lions (Scordino and Pfeifer, 1993) and this clearly

demonstrates that the combination of high local predator abundance

during salmonid migrations, restricted passage, and depressed fish

stocks can result in significant impacts on local salmonid populations

(NMFS, 1997c). Unfortunately, there are only a few areas on the west

coast, other than the Ballard Locks, where studies have documented the

influence of pinniped predation on local salmonid populations. In the

Puntledge River estuary in British Columbia, Bigg et al. (1990)

observed Pacific harbor seals surface feeding on salmonids and

documented predation rates of up to 46 percent of the returning adult

fall chinook. In the same river, observations of harbor seal predation

on coho salmon smolts in 1995 indicated that the seals consumed 15

percent of the total production. Predation on coho salmon has also been

observed at the Ballard Locks with a single California sea lion

documented to have consumed 136 coho salmon in 62 hours (2.1 coho

salmon per hour) (NMFS, 1997c). Although there have been no specific

studies in any coastal estuary on the west coast on impacts of pinniped

predation, it is known that pinniped foraging on coho salmon can be

extensive based on ancillary information from hatcheries that have

documented pinniped scarring on 11-20 percent of the returning coho

salmon (NMFS, 1997c).

In many of the small coastal rivers and streams in southern Oregon

and northern California, there is a situation that makes returning

adult coho salmon and winter steelhead more vulnerable to pinniped

predation than larger systems (NMFS, 1997c). In low rainfall years, or

when rain arrives late in the winter season, small coastal rivers do

not flow with sufficient volume to open the beach crest and flow into

the sea. Low tide periods also create or compound this condition in

low-flowing small rivers and streams. During such periods, adult fish

arrive and accumulate in nearshore waters just offshore of the closed-

off river mouth. The adult salmonids are then exposed to days or weeks

of pinniped predation at these sites until sufficient rainfall occurs

or higher tides allow access to the river or stream. During successive

years of drought, the situation is exacerbated because the river mouths

are open only intermittently during the salmonid spawning season.

Downstream migrating smolts also become more vulnerable to pinniped and

bird predation in these conditions as they congregate in the lagoons

formed near the river mouth until it opens up to the sea.

It is unlikely that pinniped predation was a significant factor in

the decline of coho salmon populations on the west coast; there have

been no specific studies that demonstrate a cause-effect relationship

between increases in pinniped numbers and declines in salmonid

populations. However, with reduced salmonid populations and increased

pinniped populations, pinniped predation can be a factor affecting the

recovery of some salmonid populations. Pinniped predation on small

salmonid populations, especially at areas of restricted fish passage,

can have negative impacts on the recovery of depressed salmonids.

Seasonal predation by pinnipeds on some salmonid populations has been

observed, and a significant negative impact on at least one salmonid

population has been documented (i.e., winter steelhead migrating

through the Ballard Locks). Pinniped impacts on salmonids are more

likely due to opportunistic behavior by certain individual pinnipeds

that have learned to exploit situations where salmonids are

concentrated and particularly vulnerable rather than being strictly

related to pinniped population size. As the number of pinnipeds

increases, however, the likelihood of more pinnipeds discovering these

situations increases, as does the opportunity to pass on such learned

behavior to other pinnipeds.

All in all, the relative impacts of marine predation on anadromous

salmonids are not well understood, but marine predation was not likely

a major factor in the coho salmon decline, although it can be a factor

in the recovery of some localized coho salmon stocks. Normally,

predators play an important role in the ecosystem, culling out unfit

individuals, thereby strengthening the species as a whole. The

increased impact of certain predators has been, to a large degree, the

result of ecosystem modification. Therefore, it would seem more likely

that increased predation is but a symptom of a much larger problem,

[[Page 24596]]

namely, habitat modification and a decrease in water quantity and

quality.

D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

Habitat Management

1. Northwest Forest Plan (NFP). The NFP is a Federal program with

important benefits for coho salmon, as described below (see Federal

Conservation Efforts). While the NFP covers a very large area, the

overall effectiveness of the NFP in conserving Oregon and California

coho salmon is limited by the extent of Federal lands and the fact that

Federal land ownership is not uniformly distributed in watersheds

within the affected ESUs. In some areas, Federal lands tend to be

located in the upper reaches of watersheds or river basins, upstream of

lower gradient river reaches that were historically important for coho

salmon production. In other areas, particularly Bureau of Land

Management (BLM) ownership, Federal lands are distributed in a

checkerboard fashion, resulting in fragmented landscapes. Both of these

Federal land distribution factors place constraints on the ability of

the NFP to achieve its aquatic habitat restoration objectives at

watershed and river basin scales and highlight the importance of

complementary salmon habitat conservation measures on non-Federal lands

within the subject ESUs.

2. State Forest Practices. The California Department of Forestry

and Fire Protection (CDF) enforces the State of California's forest

practice rules (CFPRs) which are promulgated through the Board of

Forestry (BOF). The CFPRs contain provisions that can be protective of

coho salmon if fully implemented. However, NMFS believes that the

ability of the CFPRs to protect coho salmon can be improved,

particularly in the area of developing properly functioning riparian

habitat. For this reason, NMFS is attempting to improve the condition

of riparian buffers in ongoing habitat conservation plan negotiations

with private landowners. Specifically, the CFPRs do not adequately

address large woody debris recruitment, streamside tree retention to

maintain bank stability, and canopy retention standards that assure

stream temperatures are properly functioning for all life stages of

coho salmon. The current process for approving Timber Harvest Plans

(THPs) under the CFPRs does not include monitoring of timber harvest

operations to determine whether a particular operation damaged habitat

and, if so, how it might be mitigated in future THPs. The CFPR rule

that permits salvage logging is also an area where better environmental

review and monitoring could provide NMFS with the information to

determine whether this practice impacts coho salmon.

There have been several reviews of the current CFPRs and

particularly the rules associated with the Water/lake Protection Zones

(WLPZs) for their adequacy in protecting aquatic dependent species such

as coho salmon. Most reviews have shown that implementation and

enforcement of the current rules are not adequate in protecting coho

salmon or their habitats (CDFG, 1994; Murphy, 1995). NMFS' inability to

assess the adequacy of the CFPRs is primarily due to the lack of

published documentation that the CFPRs are functioning to protect coho

salmon. NMFS is currently reviewing the CFPRs so that discussions can

be opened with CDF to determine where improvements in the language and

definition of the CFPRs would be beneficial.

The CDF has recently proposed 15 amendments to the CFPRs that would

become effective on January 1, 1998, if approved by the BOF. The

proposed changes are a positive sign that CDF recognizes the need to

provide a higher level of protection to stream side zones, provide for

additional control of sediment inputs from road construction and

harvest operations, and clarify conditions for exemptions in stream

zones. However, the adoption of the proposed changes to the CFPRs is

uncertain at this time.

The BOF's Monitoring Study Group (MSG) has developed a Long-Term

Monitoring Program (LTMP) for assessing the effectiveness of the CFPRs

in protecting water quality. The MSG recently published a report on its

Pilot Monitoring Program for the LTMP (January, 1997) which evaluated

canopy retention in 50 randomly selected THPs in Mendocino and Humboldt

Counties. The Pilot Study found that canopy retention was higher (70

percent) in the THPs which were evaluated than the minimum required by

the CFPRs (50 percent).

The Oregon Forest Practices Act (OFPA), while modified in 1995 and

improved over the previous OFPA, does not have implementing rules that

adequately protect coho salmon habitat. In particular, the current OFPA

does not provide adequate protection for the production and

introduction of large woody debris (LWD) to medium, small and non-fish

bearing streams. Small non-fish bearing streams are vitally important

to the quality of downstream habitats. These streams carry water,

sediment, nutrients, and LWD from upper portions of the watershed. The

quality of downstream habitats is determined, in part, by the timing

and amount of organic and inorganic materials provided by these small

streams (Chamberlin et al. in Meehan, 1991). Given the existing

depleted condition of most riparian forests on non-Federal lands, the

time needed to attain mature forest conditions, the lack of adequate

protection for non-riparian LWD sources in landslide-prone areas and

small headwater streams (which account for about half the wood found

naturally in stream channels) (Burnett and Reeves, 1997, citing Van

Sickle and Gregory, 1990; McDade et al., 1990; and McGreary, 1994), and

current rotation schedules (approximately 50 years), there is a low

probability that adequate LWD recruitment could be achieved under the

current requirements of the OFPA. Also, the OFPA does not adequately

consider and manage timber harvest and road construction on sensitive,

unstable slopes subject to mass wasting, nor does it address cumulative

effects.

3. Dredge, Fill, and Inwater Construction Programs. The Army Corps

of Engineers (COE) regulates removal/fill activities under section 404

of the CWA, which requires that the COE not permit a discharge that

would ``cause or contribute to significant degradation of the waters of

the United States.'' One of the factors that must be considered in this

determination is cumulative effects. However, the COE guidelines do not

specify a methodology to be used in assessing cumulative impacts or how

much weight to assign them in decision-making. In 1996 the Portland

District Office of the COE issued approximately 250 section 404 permits

for removal/fill in Oregon. The COE does not have in place any process

to address the additive effects of the continued development of

waterfront, riverine, coastal, and wetland properties.

The Oregon Division of State Lands (DSL) manages the state-

permitted portion of the removal fill laws. Oregon intends to halt

habitat degradation through the development of standardized permit

conditions incorporating best management practices for Removal-Fill

activities and through strengthening interagency coordination in

Removal-Fill permitting. The DSL also does not currently have methods

to assess, analyze, or manage cumulative effects.

4. Water Quality Programs. The Federal CWA is intended to provide

for the protection of beneficial uses, including fishery resources. To

date, implementation has not been effective

[[Page 24597]]

in adequately protecting fishery resources, particularly with respect

to non-point sources of pollution. In Oregon, water quality standards

are implemented by the DEQ pursuant to section 303(c) of the CWA. DEQ

is required by section 303(d)(1) (C) and (D) of the CWA to prepare

Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for all water bodies that do not meet

State water quality standards.

TMDLs are a method for quantitative assessment of environmental

problems in a watershed and identifying pollution reductions needed to

protect drinking water, aquatic life, recreation, and other use of

rivers, lakes, and streams. TMDLs may address all pollution sources,

including point sources such as sewage or industrial plant discharges,

and non-point discharges such as runoff from roads, farm fields, and

forests. The CWA gives state governments the primary responsibility for

establishing TMDLs, however, EPA can also develop them.

Oregon DEQ entered into a consent decree in 1987 to develop at

least two TMDLs per year. The Healthy Streams Partnership describes a

general approach to address non-point source water quality problems in

Oregon, particularly with respect to agricultural activities. If

Oregon's Healthy Streams Partnership is fully funded, DEQ expects to

complete all TMDLs for all impaired coastal watersheds within 10 years.

Oregon's guidance for non-point source TMDLs includes an implementation

component that is lacking in prior non-point source TMDLs nationwide.

Since the beneficial use of salmonid fishes is most often affected by

the largely non-point source sediment and temperature impairments, this

advance in non-point source TMDLs may be important. The development of

strong TMDLs to cover all water quality impaired coastal waters could

contribute substantially to coho salmon recovery.

The CWA gives state governments the primary responsibility for

establishing TMDLs. However, EPA is required to do so if a state does

not meet this responsibility. In California, as a result of recent

litigation, the EPA has made a legal commitment guaranteeing that

either EPA or the State of California will establish TMDLs, which

identify pollution reduction targets, for these 18 impaired river

basins in northern California by the year 2007. The State of California

has made a commitment to establish TMDLs for approximately half the 18

river basins by 2007. The EPA will develop TMDLs for the remaining

basins and has also agreed to complete all TMDLS if the state fails to

meet its commitment within the agreed upon time frame.

The ability of these TMDLs to protect coho salmon in Oregon and

California is expected to be significant in the long-term; however, it

will be difficult to develop them quickly in the short-term and their

efficacy in protecting coho salmon habitat will be unknown for years to

come.

5. State Agricultural Practices. Historically, the impacts to fish

habitat from agricultural practices have not been closely regulated.

The Oregon Department of Agriculture has recently completed guidance

for development of agricultural water quality management plans (AWQMPs)

(as enacted by State Senate Bill 1010). Plans that are consistent with

this guidance are likely to achieve state water quality standards. It

is open to question, however, whether they will adequately address

salmonid habitat factors, such as properly functioning riparian

conditions. Their ability to address all relevant factors will depend

on the manner in which they are implemented. AWQMPs are anticipated to

be developed at a basin scale, so the entirety of coastal Oregon may be

covered. AWQMPs include regulatory authority and enforcement

provisions. The Healthy Streams Partnership schedules adoption of

AWQMPs for all impaired waters by 2001.

6. State Urban Growth Management. On lands inside Oregon's urban

growth boundaries, some upgraded riparian area protection will be

afforded by the newly revised requirements for statewide planning Goal

5. Local governments will amend their local comprehensive plans to

implement these new requirements. Unfortunately, Goal 5 does not

require establishment and protection of riparian vegetation to provide

adequate large woody debris and allows limited road building in

riparian areas.

Harvest Management

Harvest of coho salmon in Federal waters off the west coast is

managed by the PFMC and NMFS. Harvest of California and Oregon coastal

coho salmon has been managed based on achieving adequate escapement of

OCN coho salmon. Despite annual management and use of best available

scientific information, spawning escapements have declined

significantly over the past 20 years. Prior to 1994, harvest rates on

OCN coho salmon were too high for the poor ocean conditions that are

now realized to have been occurring. Further, declining numbers of

natural spawning fish were masked by high stray rates of hatchery fish.

Since 1994, the PFMC has recommended harvest rates of 10-13 percent

even though regulations allowed up to a 20 percent harvest rate during

the same time period. Since 1994, the PFMC also has recommended

prohibiting the retention of coho salmon south of Cape Falcon, OR,

which has resulted in relatively low levels of incidental mortality.

Oregon also has begun marking all hatchery fish so that natural

escapements can be more accurately quantified. Oregon has proposed that

the PFMC amend its ocean fisheries regulations to adopt the OCSRI

harvest framework.

Fisheries management of coho salmon in Oregon state waters inside

the 3-mile (5 km) limit historically had similar problems and

contributed to the overall decline. In more recent years, however,

state angling regulations have required the release of all naturally-

produced coho salmon in the Oregon portion of the Southern Oregon/

Northern California Coast ESU. The harvest measures and associated

monitoring plan in the OCSRI will provide a significantly better

framework from which PFMC and Oregon will manage their coho salmon

fisheries.

Oregon currently manages several populations of non-indigenous fish

species (e.g., striped, largemouth, and smallmouth bass) for optimal

recreational fisheries. These fish were in many cases introduced into

Oregon waters in violation of Oregon law. Scientists have documented

that at least in some circumstances, the presence of these non-

indigenous species has reduced or eliminated coho salmon populations

(OCSRI 1997). The ongoing management applied to these exotic fish

species, in certain locales, may not be consistent with the goals of

the ESA. The OCSRI contains provisions to review the science and

management direction pertinent to the interaction of non-indigenous

fish species and coastal coho salmon. Results of this review will guide

NMFS and Oregon in the future management or actions addressing

interactions of these species with coho salmon.

The State of California has jurisdiction over ocean salmon fishing

within 3 miles (5 km) of the coast offshore California. Subsequent to

NMFS's implementation of ocean salmon harvest regulations for the

Exclusive Economic Zone, the California Fish and Game Commission (CFGC)

and CDFG, respectively, conform the State's ocean salmon regulations

for commercial and sportfishing within the 3-mile (5 km) limit to those

adopted by NMFS. In most years the CFGC and CDFG issue

[[Page 24598]]

regulations that conform fully with Federal ocean salmon regulation.

The CFGC is also responsible for issuing in-river sportfishing

regulations in California. At present, the state's sportfishing

regulations continue to allow fishing for coho salmon in the inland

waters of the Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast ESU, and the

Commission has not proposed to take action in the event the ESU is

listed under the Federal ESA.

The contribution of coho salmon to the in-river sport catch is

unknown for most California watersheds, as are losses due to injury and

mortality from incidental capture in other state-authorized fisheries

such as steelhead. However, the CDFG has conducted limited in-river

monitoring of coho salmon harvest by anglers in the Trinity River above

Willow Creek since 1977, and estimates that in-river angler harvest for

coho salmon in this reach of the Trinity River has averaged 598 coho

salmon harvested per year. Current state funding and personnel

resources are not available to implement comprehensive monitoring

programs to evaluate the magnitude of in-river harvest impacts in

California.

Hatchery Management

Oregon has adopted a Wild Fish Policy that guides many aspects of

hatchery use, their broodstock protocols, and the degree of interaction

between hatchery and wild fish. This policy has improved many hatchery

operations throughout Oregon with respect to the protection of wild

fish populations and their genetic diversity. However, full and prompt

implementation of the policy has not occurred and Oregon continues to

make program adjustments to achieve fish management consistent with the

purposes of the policy and the Federal ESA.

One provision of the Wild Fish Policy is that hatcheries using

local broodstock and managed according to specific protocols can

contribute up to 50 percent of the number of fish spawning in the

natural habitat. NMFS believes this 50 percent guideline can be

appropriate when the hatchery fish are part of a recovery program

needed to boost an at-risk population. However, current scientific

information indicates that it is not appropriate in hatchery programs

intended to enhance populations for the purposes of increased harvest.

Consequently discussions between NMFS and ODFW have resulted in the

OCSRI including a measure to manage coho salmon hatchery and harvest

programs so that natural spawning populations contain no more than 10

percent hatchery strays.

In California, the CDFG directly operates artificial propagation

programs for coho salmon at three hatcheries in the Southern Oregon/

Northern California Coast ESU. These include Iron Gate Hatchery,

Trinity River Hatchery, and the Mad River Hatchery. The CDFG has

recently developed production goals and constraints for both the Iron

Gate and Trinity River Hatchery programs (CDFG, 1997a). Both hatcheries

now operate under goals and constraints which specify use of adults

returning to the hatcheries and prohibits use of stocks from other

drainages for spawning and rearing. Transfer of production to outside

drainages is generally prohibited, but can occur under some

circumstances. Additional privately-owned and operated hatchery

programs for coho salmon are conducted in Rowdy Creek (Rowdy Creek

Hatchery), the Eel River (Hollow Tree Creek Hatchery), and in the

Mattole River. Other smaller programs that are not currently

propagating coho salmon are in Freshwater Creek and Prairie Creek.

In the past, non-native coho salmon stocks have been introduced as

broodstock in hatcheries and widely transplanted in many coastal rivers

and streams in the California portion of the Southern Oregon/Northern

California Coast ESU (Weitkamp et al., 1995). Because of problems

associated with this practice, CDFG developed its Salmon and Steelhead

Stock Management Policy. This policy recognizes that such stock mixing

is detrimental and seeks to maintain the genetic integrity of all

identifiable stocks of salmon and steelhead in California, as well as

minimize interactions between hatchery and natural populations. To

protect the genetic integrity of salmon and steelhead stocks, this

policy directs CDFG to evaluate each salmon and steelhead stream and

classify it according to its probable genetic source and degree of

integrity. However, this has not yet been accomplished by the state.

Although non-native coho salmon stocks have been introduced in the

Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast ESU, most hatchery programs

are now being conducted without the import of broodstock from other

ESUs in accordance with CDFG's policy. With the exception of the Mad

River Hatchery, hatchery programs in this ESU are being operated as

supplementation hatcheries rather than production hatcheries. They are

taking eggs from the rivers in which they operate and returning fish to

the river from which they were taken. Release of hatchery fish occurs

in streams with stocks similar to the native runs. Efforts are made to

return hatchery fish to their natal streams, and they are held for an

acclimation period to increase the probability of imprinting. In

contrast, the Mad River Hatchery has used numerous out-of-basin and

out-of-state coho salmon stocks. A review of CDFG hatchery production

and planting records indicates that coho salmon smolts still continue

to be planted in streams other than that where the hatchery is located.

These out-of-stream plants have occurred both in other coho salmon ESUs

and in other basins within individual ESUs. In addition, there are

inadequate CDFG resources to tag enough hatchery coho salmon to monitor

return rates and rates of straying (CDFG 1995).

The CFGC has also developed specific policies for Private Non-

profit Hatcheries (section 1170-1175 of the Fish and Game Code) and

Cooperative Salmon and Steelhead Rearing Facilities (sections 1200-1206

of the Fish and Game Code) that have been incorporated into the Fish

and Game Code. These policies are intended to ensure that the bulk of

the state's salmon and steelhead resources are produced naturally and

that the state's goals of maintaining and increasing natural production

take precedence over the goals of cooperatively operated rearing

programs. Privately owned rearing and hatchery programs for coho salmon

in the Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast ESU are operated in

accordance with these policies.

In its comments on the proposed rule (CDFG, 1995), CDFG stated that

its coho salmon hatchery programs can be integrated into recovery plans

for each ESU within California through re-evaluation of each hatchery's

goals and constraints with program modifications where appropriate. In

a letter dated March 7, 1997 (CDFG, 1997b), CDFG reiterated its view

that its coho salmon hatchery programs are compatible with the recovery

of coho salmon and other at-risk salmon and steelhead populations in

California.

E. Other Natural or Human-Made Factors Affecting Its Continued

Existence

Natural Factors

Long-term trends in rainfall and marine productivity associated

with atmospheric conditions in the North Pacific Ocean likely have a

major influence on coho salmon production. Numerous comments received

by NMFS

[[Page 24599]]

underscored both the importance and uncertainties surrounding natural

environmental fluctuations, but few provided substantive new

information. Some commenters thought that recent coho salmon declines

were merely reflective of a natural production cycle while others

believed that declines had been exacerbated by human influences,

especially on freshwater habitats.

Populations that are fragmented or reduced in size and range are

more vulnerable to extinction by natural events. Whether recent

climatic conditions represent a long-term change that will continue to

affect salmonid stocks in the future or whether these changes are

short-term environmental fluctuations that can be expected to reverse

in the near future remains unclear. Many of the coho salmon population

declines began prior to these recent drought conditions.

1. Drought. Many areas of the Pacific coast have experienced

drought conditions during much of the past decade, a situation that has

undoubtedly contributed to the decline of many salmonid populations.

Drought conditions reduce the amount of water available, resulting in

reductions (or elimination) of flows needed for adult coho salmon

passage, egg incubation, and juvenile rearing and migration. There are

indications in tree ring records that droughts more severe than the

drought that California recently experienced occurred in the past

(Stine 1994). Aside from the critical role that habitat complexity

plays in providing fish with instream refugia during drought

conditions, the key to survival in this type of variable and rapidly

changing environment is the evolution of behaviors and life history

traits that allow coho salmon to cope with a variety of environmental

conditions.

2. Floods. With high inherent erosion risk, urban encroachment, and

intensive timber management, flood events can cause major soil loss

(Hagans et al., 1986; Nawa et al., 1991; Higgins et al., 1992). As

previously mentioned, sedimentation of stream beds has been implicated

as a principal cause of declining salmonid populations throughout their

range. Floods can result in mass wasting of erodible hillslopes and

failure of roads on unstable slopes causing catastrophic erosion. In

addition, flooding can cause scour and redeposition of spawning gravels

in typically inaccessible areas.

During flood events, land disturbances resulting from logging, road

construction, mining, urbanization, livestock grazing, agriculture,

fire, and other uses may contribute sediment directly to streams or

exacerbate sedimentation from natural erosive processes (California

Advisory Committee on Salmon and Steelhead Trout, 1988; CSLC, 1993;

FEMAT, 1993). Judsen and Ritter (1964), the California Department of

Water Resources (CDWR, 1982), and the California State Lands Commission

(CSLC, 1993) have stated that northwestern and central coastal

California have some of the most erodible terrain in the world. Several

studies have indicated that, in this region, catastrophic erosion and

subsequent stream sedimentation (such as during the 1955 and 1964

floods) resulted from areas which had been clearcut or which had roads

constructed on unstable soils (Janda et al., 1975; Wahrhaftig, 1976;

Kelsey, 1980; Lisle, 1982; Hagans et al., 1986).

As streams and pools fill in with sediment, flood flow capacity is

reduced. Such changes cause decreased stream stability and increased

bank erosion, and, subsequently, exacerbate existing sedimentation

problems (Lisle, 1982), including sedimentation of spawning gravels and

filling of pools and estuaries. Channel widening and loss of pool-

riffle sequence due to sedimentation has damaged spawning and rearing

habitat of all salmonids. By 1980, the pool-riffle sequence and pool

quality in some California streams still had not fully recovered from

the 1964 regional flood. In fact, Lisle (1982) and Weaver and Hagans

(1996) found that many Pacific coast streams continue to show signs of

harboring debris flow from the 1964 flood. Such streams have remained

shallow, wide, warm, and unstable.

More recently, between November 1995 and April 1996, the Pacific

Northwest experienced a rare series of storm and flood events. High

winds, heavy rainfall, rapid snowmelt, numerous landslides and debris

torrents, mobilization of large woody debris and high runoff occurred

over portions of Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Montana (USFS and BLM,

1996). These storms, which resulted in 100-year floods in some Oregon

coastal basins, also had a potentially large effect on the survival of

Oregon coast coho salmon and the freshwater habitats upon which they

depend. Aerial surveys from a study by Pacific Watershed Associates

(PWA undated) in the middle Coast Range of Oregon noted that areas with

the greatest impact were typically watersheds with a combination of

steep slopes, unstable bedrock geology, recent timber harvesting, high

road densities, and within the altitude range where precipitation

intensities were probably the greatest. This study also stressed that

landslides were highly correlated with management activities and

originated from recent clear-cuts and forest roads at much higher

frequencies than from wilderness or unmanaged areas. In addition to

these observations, Pacific Watershed Associates concluded that the

floods may have had long-term effects on watershed habitats. For

example, they suggested that materials destabilized but not mobilized

by the flood may remain unstable and therefore be susceptible to future

flood events for some time, materials deposited in streams and rivers

may persist for decades, and the impact to larger streams and rivers

may actually increase over a period of several years as sediment is

moved downstream.

With regard to impacts to in-stream coho salmon habitat, changes

due to flooding were both positive and negative, depending on the area.

For example, ODFW surveys (Moore and Jones, 1997) identified some areas

with many new channels cut, which could provide off-channel habitat for

coho salmon. In the Tillamook Bay basin, the Wilson River received

major negative impacts, while the Tillamook and Trask Rivers received

little impact. Siuslaw National Forest (SNF, 1996) reported that the

February 1996 flooding actually increased positive habitat changes

(increased pool area and quality, increased cover complexity, and shift

from bedrock, boulder and cobble substrates to gravel and sand) in many

smaller streams in areas undergoing habitat improvement projects but

not in adjacent, untreated reaches, nor in habitat improvement projects

in large streams. Bush et al. (1997) noted that decreases in pool area

ranged from 10-50 percent, and largely resulted from a 60-percent loss

of beaver pond habitat (which provide critical overwinter coho salmon

habitat). Large woody debris decreased by approximately 25 percent from

the initial surveys, although much of the lost wood had been pushed up

onto the floodplain or out of the active channel. Overall, large

amounts of gravel were added to most streams, and new gravel bars were

common.

Recent stream production studies conducted by ODFW (Solazzi and

Johnson, 1997) indicate that 1996 smolt production in four central

Oregon coast study streams were lower than recent averages, with

overwinter survival the lowest or second lowest on record for the two

streams for which estimates were made, and that age zero fish

production was also low. They concluded that the most significant

impact of the flooding was on juveniles and coho salmon eggs that were

in the

[[Page 24600]]

gravel at the time of the flood. While these results are based on a

small sample of streams and may not reflect average effects of the

floods, it suggests that 1997 and 1998 adult returns to some coastal

basins will be reduced by the floods. Longer-term effects of the floods

can also be expected to vary among basins, but most reports available

to us suggest that long-term effects should generally be neutral or

slightly beneficial (e.g., from sediment removal and increased off-

channel habitat) to coho salmon.

3. Ocean Conditions and El Nino. Large fluctuations in Pacific

salmon catch have occurred during the past century. Annual world

harvest of Pacific salmon has varied from 772 million kg in the 1930s

to about 409 million kg in 1977 and back to 818 million kg by 1989

(Hare and Francis, 1993). Mechanisms linking atmospheric and oceanic

physics and fish populations have been suggested for Pacific salmon

(Rogers, 1984; Nickelson, 1986; Johnson, 1988; Brodeur and Ware, 1992;

Francis et al., 1992; Francis, 1993; Hare and Francis, 1993; Ward,

1993). Many studies have tried to correlate the production or marine

survival of salmon with environmental factors (Pearcy, 1992; Neeley,

1994). Vernon (1958), Holtby and Scrivener (1989), and Holtby et al.

(1990) have reported associations between salmon survival and sea

surface temperature and salinity, especially during the first few

months that salmonids are at sea. Francis and Sibley (1991), Rogers

(1984), and Cooney et al. (1993) also found relationships between

salmon production and sea surface temperature. Some studies have tried

to link salmon production to oceanic and atmospheric climate change.

For example, Beamish and Bouillon (1993) and Ward (1993) found that

trends in Pacific salmon catches were similar to trends in winter

atmospheric circulation in the North Pacific.

Francis and Sibley (1991) and Francis et al. (1992) have developed

a model linking decadal-scale atmospheric variability and salmon

production that incorporates hypotheses developed by Hollowed and

Wooster (1991) and Wickett (1967), as well as evidence presented in

many other studies. The model developed by Francis et al. (1992)

describes a time series of biological and physical variables from the

Northeast Pacific that appear to share decadal-scale patterns.

Biological and physical variables that appear to have undergone shifts

during the late 1970s include the following: Abundance of salmon

(Rogers, 1984 and 1987; Hare and Francis, 1993) and other pelagic fish,

cephalopods, and zooplankton (Brodeur and Ware, 1992); oceanographic

properties such as current transport (Royer, 1989), sea surface

temperature and upwelling (Holowed and Wooster, 1991); and atmospheric

phenomena such as atmospheric circulation patterns, sea-surface

pressure patterns, and sea-surface wind-stress (Trenberth, 1990;

Trenberth et al., 1993).

Finally, Scarnecchia (1981) reported that near-shore conditions

during the spring and summer months along the California coast may

dramatically affect year-class strength of salmonids. Bottom et al.

(1986) believed that coho salmon along the Oregon and California coast

may be especially sensitive to upwelling patterns because these regions

lack extensive bays, straits, and estuaries, such as those found along

the Washington, British Columbia, and Alaskan coast, which could buffer

adverse oceanographic effects. They speculate that the paucity of high

quality near-shore habitat, coupled with variable ocean conditions,

makes freshwater rearing habitat more crucial for the survival and

persistence of many coho salmon populations.

An environmental condition often cited as a cause for the decline

of west coast salmonids is the condition known as ``El Nino.'' El Nino

is a warming of the Pacific Ocean off South America and is caused by

atmospheric changes in the tropical Pacific Ocean. During an El Nino

event, a plume of warm sea water flows from west to east toward South

America, eventually reaching the coast where it is deflected south and

north along the continents.

El Nino ocean conditions are characterized by anomalously warm sea

surface temperature and changes in thermal structure, coastal currents,

and upwelling. Principal ecosystem alterations include decreases in

primary and secondary productivity and changes in prey and predator

species distributions. Several El Nino events have been recorded during

the last several decades, including those of 1940-41, 1957-58, 1982-83,

1986-87, 1991-92, and 1993-94. The degree to which adverse ocean

conditions can influence coho salmon production was demonstrated during

the El Nino event of 1982-83, which resulted in a 24 to 27 percent

reduction in fecundity and a 58 percent reduction (based on pre-return

predictions) in survival of adult coho salmon stocks originating from

the Oregon Production Index area (Johnson, 1988).

Manmade Factors--Artificial Propagation

Potential problems associated with hatchery programs include

genetic impacts on indigenous, naturally-reproducing populations,

disease transmission, predation of wild fish, difficulty in determining

wild stock status due to incomplete marking of hatchery fish, depletion

of wild stock to increase brood stock, and replacement rather than

supplementation of wild stocks through competition and continued annual

introduction of hatchery fish (Waples, 1991; Hindar et al., 1991;

Stewart and Bjornn, 1990). All things being equal, the more hatchery

fish that are released, the more likely natural populations are to be

impacted by hatchery fish. Similarly, the more genetically similar

hatchery fish are to natural populations they spawn with, the less

change there will be in the genetic makeup of future generations in the

natural population. Non-native coho salmon stocks have been introduced

as broodstock in hatcheries and widely transplanted in many coastal

rivers and streams in Oregon and California (Bryant, 1994; Weitkamp et

al., 1995; NMFS, 1997a).

Advancement and compression of run timing have been common

phenomena in hatchery populations, and these changes can affect future

generations of naturally-reproducing fish. Fry of early-spawning adults

generally hatch earlier and grow faster and can thus displace fry of

later-spawning natural fish (Chapman, 1962). Conversely, early-spawning

coho salmon redds are more prone to being destroyed by early fall

floods. Consequently, early-spawning individuals may be unable to

establish permanent, self-sustaining populations but may nevertheless

adversely affect existing natural populations (Solazzi et al., 1990). A

recent study found that over a period of 13 years, the range of

spawning timing of coho salmon at five Washington hatcheries decreased

from 10 weeks to 3 weeks, causing the range of the period of return to

the hatcheries to decrease by one-half (Flagg et al., 1995).

Another common hatchery practice with coho salmon is release of

``excess'' hatchery production into natural habitat as fry or parr.

Outplanting large numbers of large hatchery juveniles into streams

already occupied by naturally-produced juveniles may place the resident

fish at a competitive disadvantage and may force them into marginal

habitats that have low survival potential (Chapman, 1962; Solazzi et

al., 1990).

[[Page 24601]]

Stock transfers of coho salmon were common throughout the Oregon

and California coast; the nature and magnitude of these transfers

varied by area and basin. Compared to areas farther north, hatcheries

in central California and southern Oregon/northern California are

relatively small and widely dispersed, given the size of both areas.

Northern California hatcheries have received fairly large transplants

of coho salmon from hatcheries in Washington and Oregon, which have

spread to central California through stock transfers. Because of the

predominance of hatchery stocks in the Klamath River basin, stock

transfers into Trinity and Iron Gate Hatcheries may have had a

substantial impact on natural populations in the basin and raises

serious concerns about their sustainability. Available information

indicates that virtually all of the naturally spawning fish in the

Trinity River are first generation hatchery fish. In contrast, Cole

Rivers Hatchery (on the Rogue River) appears to have relied exclusively

on native stocks.

In recent years, large hatcheries in southern Oregon/northern

California (e.g., Mad and Trinity River Hatcheries) have produced

400,000 to 500,000 juveniles annually, while smaller hatcheries, and

most hatcheries in central California, produce no more than 100,000 to

200,000 juveniles each year. Most Oregon coastal hatcheries recently

produced approximately 400,000 to 1,400,000 juveniles annually,

although private hatcheries (no longer in operation) recently produced

2 to 5 million juvenile coho salmon annually. Most historic transfers

of coho salmon into Oregon coastal hatcheries used other Oregon coastal

stocks. However, some coastal hatchery programs (notably private

hatcheries no longer in existence) made extensive use of Puget Sound

coho salmon stocks. Some transfers of Columbia River coho salmon into

Oregon coastal hatcheries have occurred, but these were relatively

infrequent and minor. Similarly, most outplants of coho salmon into

Oregon coastal rivers have used Oregon coastal stocks, with outplants

of stocks from other areas being relatively small and infrequent.

NMFS received a number of comments regarding the impacts of

hatchery fish on wild coho salmon populations. Some commenters

(including a peer reviewer) contended that NMFS overstated the

significance of impacts from hatchery fish on wild coho salmon. NMFS

has worked with the state agency comanagers to resolve uncertainties

regarding these impacts, and has documented these findings in a status

review update (NMFS 1997a). These findings note that widespread

spawning by hatchery fish continues to be a major concern for both the

Oregon Coast and Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast ESUs. Scale

analyses to determine hatchery-wild ratios of naturally spawning fish

indicate moderate to high levels of hatchery fish spawning naturally in

many basins on the Oregon coast, and at least a few hatchery fish were

identified in almost every basin examined. Although it is possible that

these data do not provide a representative picture of the extent of

this problem, they represent the best information available at the

present time. In addition to concerns for genetic and ecological

interactions with wild fish, these data also suggest that the natural

portion (i.e., fish born in the gravel) of the natural spawner

abundance may be overestimated by ODFW and that the declines in

recruits per spawner in many areas may have been even more severe than

current estimates indicate (NMFS, 1997a). However, Oregon has made some

significant changes in its hatchery practices, such as substantially

reducing production levels in some basins, switching to on-station

smolt releases, and decreasing fry releases, and proposes additional

changes (discussed below), to address this and other concerns about the

impacts of hatchery fish on natural populations.

While there are obvious concerns over the negative effects of

hatchery fish on wild coho salmon stocks, it is important to note that

artificial propagation could play an important role in coho salmon

recovery and that some hatchery populations of coho salmon may be

deemed essential for the recovery of threatened or endangered ESUs

(e.g., if the associated natural population(s) were already extinct or

at high risk of extinction). Under these circumstances, NMFS would

consider taking the administrative action of listing the hatchery fish.

Efforts To Protect Oregon and California Coho Salmon

Under section 4 of the ESA, a determination to propose a species

for listing as threatened or endangered requires considering the

biological status of the species, as well as efforts being made to

protect the species. Since the early 1990s Federal agencies, state and

local governments and private parties have taken substantial measures

to protect coho salmon in Oregon and California. These measures affect

habitat, harvest, and hatchery activities. In the agency's decision to

invoke a statutory extension for the listing determination (October 31,

1996, 61 FR 56211), it was noted that the State of Oregon was planning

to submit a peer-reviewed salmon restoration initiative (i.e., the

Oregon Coastal Salmon Restoration Initiative) for NMFS' consideration

in the spring of 1997. California was undertaking a similar effort, but

it was less certain when its plan would be completed. These plans were

expected to contain detailed summaries and assessments of conservation

measures which benefit coho salmon in the respective states, and hence

aid NMFS in making a listing determination. The following sections

summarize these Federal and state conservation efforts.

I. Federal Conservation Efforts. 1. NFP. The NFP is a Federal

interagency cooperative program, the Record of Decision for Amendments

to U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and BLM Planning Documents Within the

Range of the Spotted Owl, which was signed and implemented in April

1994. The NFP represents a coordinated ecosystem management strategy

for Federal lands administered by the USFS and BLM within the range of

the Northern spotted owl (which overlaps considerably with the

freshwater range of coho salmon). The NFP region-wide management

direction either amended or was incorporated into approximately 26 USFS

land and resource management plans (LRMPs) and two regional guides.

The most significant element of the NFP for anadromous fish is its

Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS), a regional-scale aquatic ecosystem

conservation strategy that includes: (1) Special land allocations, such

as key watersheds, riparian reserves, and late-successional reserves,

to provide aquatic habitat refugia; (2) special requirements for

project planning and design in the form of standards and guidelines;

and (3) new watershed analysis, watershed restoration, and monitoring

processes. These ACS components collectively ensure that Federal land

management actions achieve a set of nine Aquatic Conservation Strategy

objectives, which include salmon habitat conservation. In recognition

of over 300 ``at-risk'' Pacific salmonid stocks within the NFP area

(Nehlsen et al., 1991), the ACS was developed by aquatic scientists,

with NMFS participation, to restore and maintain the ecological health

of watersheds and aquatic ecosystems on public lands. The ACS strives

to maintain and restore ecosystem health at watershed and landscape

scales to protect habitat for fish and other riparian-dependent species

and resources and to restore currently degraded habitats. The approach

seeks

[[Page 24602]]

to prevent further degradation and to restore habitat on Federal lands

over broad landscapes.

In the final rule listing Umpqua River cutthroat trout as

endangered (August 9, 1996, 61 FR 41514), NMFS acknowledged that NFP

amendments to Federal LRMPs were ``intended to ultimately reverse the

trend of aquatic ecosystem degradation and contribute toward recovery

of fish habitat,'' however, it was noted at the time that the results

of the NFP ACS were ``yet to be demonstrated.'' Following 3 years of

NFP implementation, NMFS subsequently reviewed the adequacy of 14

individual LRMPs, as modified by the NFP and its ACS, for conserving

Oregon Coast and Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast coho salmon.

The results of these reviews are described in two conference opinions

(NMFS, 1995 and 1997d) that document NMFS'' determinations that the

programmatic direction for Federal land management actions embodied in

the 14 LRMPs would not be likely to jeopardize the continued existence

of Oregon Coast or Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast coho

salmon. Moreover, the opinions concluded that implementation of

management direction in the LRMPs and RMPs will result in substantially

improved habitat conditions for these ESUs over the next few decades

and into the future. Improved habitat conditions will result in

increased survival of the freshwater life stages of these fish.

Implementation of actions consistent with the ACS objectives and

components--including watershed analysis, watershed restoration,

reserve and refugia land allocations, and associated standards and

guidelines--will provide high levels of aquatic ecosystem

understanding, protection, and restoration for aquatic habitat-

dependent species.

Federal lands managed under the NFP comprise about 35 percent of

the total area of the Oregon Coast coho salmon ESU. This includes all

or part of the Siskiyou, Siuslaw, and Umpqua National Forests (NF); and

the Coos Bay, Eugene, Medford, Roseburg and Salem BLM Districts.

Federal land ownership in the Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast

coho salmon ESU represents approximately 53 percent of the total area

of the ESU and includes Federal land managed by the USFS, BLM, and

National Park Service (NPS). The USFS lands, for example, include all

or substantial portions of four National Forests (Klamath NF, Six

Rivers NF, Shasta-Trinity NF, and Mendocino NF). The vast majority of

the USFS land is concentrated in the northernmost California

watersheds, including significant portions of the Smith River basin

(including the Smith River National Recreational Area, which is part of

Six Rivers NF), the mid-to upper Klamath basin (with the exception of

Scott and Shasta Rivers), and the Trinity River basin.

2. Other Federal Programs. Other significant federally funded and/

or managed conservation programs or activities in the California

portion of the Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast ESU include

the Klamath Basin Restoration Program, the Trinity River Basin Fish and

Wildlife Restoration Program, the Action Plan for the Restoration of

the South Fork Trinity River Watershed and Fisheries, and Redwood

National Park efforts to restore anadromous salmonid habitat in the

Redwood Creek basin.

In addition to these major efforts, NMFS is also engaged in

significant ESA section 7 consultation actions on several Federal

projects or activities in the California portion of this ESU. These

efforts include: (1) Consultation with the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR)

concerning operations management of the Klamath Project in the upper

Klamath River basin to provide adequate flows for anadromous salmonids

in the mainstem Klamath River, (2) consultation with the FWS and BOR to

provide adequate flows and temperatures for anadromous salmonids in the

mainstem Trinity River, (3) consultation with the COE to address gravel

mining and other instream activities, and (4) consultation with the

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) concerning inter-basin

water transfers from the Eel River to the Russian River (between the

Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast ESU and Central California

ESU) via Pacific Gas & Electric's Potter Valley Project. These

consultation efforts are expected to contribute significantly to the

long-term conservation of coho salmon and its habitat. Other Federal

efforts in Oregon include the South Slough National Estuarine Research

Reserve located in Coos Bay, an upcoming consultation on a hydropower

facility on the Umpqua River, continued road retirement and

obliteration on Federal forest lands, and ongoing review of Elk Creek

Dam and Savage Rapids Dam on the Rogue River and the proposed Milltown

Hill Dam on the Umpqua River.

The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) assists

agriculture in addressing impacts to anadromous fish. The NRCS is

currently engaged with the NMFS in discussions about updating their

Field Office Technical Guides (FOTGs) to better assist landowners in

California and Oregon desiring to implement voluntary conservation

measures protective of, or benefitting, salmonids. A subset of the

FOTGs are the guidance that local field offices follow when engaging in

actions that may affect anadromous fish or their habitats.

3. Habitat Conservation Plans. NMFS and the FWS are engaged in an

ongoing effort to assist in the development of multiple species Habitat

Conservation Plans (HCPs) for state and privately owned lands in both

California and Oregon. While section 7 of the ESA addresses species

protection on Federal lands, Habitat Conservation Planning under

section 10 of the ESA addresses species protection on private (non-

Federal) lands. HCPs are particularly important since approximately 65

percent of the habitat in the range of these ESUs is in non-federal

ownership. The intent of the HCP process is to reduce conflicts between

listed species and economic development activities, and to provide a

framework that would encourage ``creative partnerships'' between the

public and private sectors and state, municipal, and Federal agencies

in the interests of endangered and threatened species and habitat

conservation (NRC, 1995).

II. Oregon's Coastal Salmon Restoration Initiative (OCSRI).

Beginnings of the OCSRI. In October 1995, Oregon's Governor John

Kitzhaber launched the OCSRI. One of the Governor's first steps was to

establish a team approach for developing an action plan to restore the

health of coastal salmon and trout populations. The following key teams

were formed early in the process: (1) A Salmon Strategy Team in which

the directors of key state agencies met with the Governor on a biweekly

basis; (2) an Outreach and Education Team that was directed to work

with key agency stakeholders, ask for their advice, and present ideas

for their comment; (3) a Science Team to work on technical issues; and

(4) an Agency Planning & Implementation Team to coordinate many aspects

of the development of the conservation plan. Senior NMFS staff members

participated as members of the Salmon Strategy Team, the Science Team,

and the Agency Planning & Implementation Team.

This effort focussed each of the major state agencies on developing

a plan, removing institutional barriers, and working through difficult

issues with their state and Federal colleagues, stakeholders, and the

public. Meanwhile, the science team was

[[Page 24603]]

working on the biological underpinnings of the OCSRI.

Essential Tenets of the OCSRI

1. The plan comprehensively addresses all factors for decline of

the coho salmon, most notably, those factors relating to harvest,

habitat, and hatchery activities.

2. Under this plan, all State agencies whose activities affect

salmon are held accountable for coordinating their programs in a manner

that conserves and restores the species and their habitat. This is

essential because coastal salmon have been affected by the actions of

many different state agencies.

3. The Plan includes a framework for prioritizing conservation and

restoration efforts. Draft coho salmon ``core areas'' are identified in

order to focus measures on retaining current salmon strongholds while

rebuilding other areas.

4. The Plan includes a comprehensive monitoring plan that

coordinates Federal, state, and local efforts to improve our

understanding of freshwater and marine conditions, determine

populations trends, evaluate the effects of artificial propagation, and

rate the OCSRI's success in restoring the salmon.

5. The Plan recognizes that actions to conserve and restore salmon

must be worked out by communities and landowners--those who possess

local knowledge of problems and who have a genuine stake in the

outcome. Watershed councils, soil and water conservation districts, and

other grassroots efforts are the vehicles for getting this work done.

6. The Plan is based upon the principles of adaptive management.

Through this process, there is an explicit mechanism for learning from

experience, evaluating alternative approaches, and making needed

changes in the programs and measures.

7. The Plan includes an Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team

(IMST). The IMST's purpose is to provide an independent audit of the

OCSRI's strengths and weaknesses. They will aid the adaptive management

process by compiling new information into a yearly review of goals,

objectives, and strategies, and by recommending changes.

8. The Plan requires that a yearly report be made to the Governor,

the legislature, and the public. This will help the agencies make the

adjustments described for the adaptive management process (above).

Development of the OCSRI

The state distributed a draft OCSRI to interested parties in August

1996. Shortly thereafter, county commissioners sponsored a series of

public information meetings to involve key groups and interested

individuals in the following locations: Astoria, Tillamook, Newport,

Coos Bay, Grants Pass, Gold Beach, Roseburg, and Portland. The

Governor's staff presented the draft OCSRI and explained the

opportunities for public comment. More than 550 people attended these

public meetings. The August 1996 OCSRI draft was critically reviewed

and over 600 pages of comments, suggestions, and questions on the draft

Plan were received. Those comments were used by Oregon to revise the

Plan.

In September 1996, NMFS published and distributed Coastal Salmon

Conservation: Working Guidance For Comprehensive Salmon Restoration

Initiatives On the Pacific Coast (NMFS, 1996d). The intent of the

document was to help guide restoration initiatives such as the OCSRI.

The OCSRI was revised and supplemented in many areas in response to

that guidance. In early November 1996, William Stelle, Jr., NMFS'

Northwest Regional Administrator, sent Governor Kitzhaber a package of

substantive comments on the August OCSRI draft.

A second draft of the OCSRI was issued on February 24, 1997.

Although time was short, Legislators, constituents, and NMFS technical

staff reviewed this draft and provided additional suggestions for

improving the Plan. Many of these were incorporated into the final

document. As part of the Oregon Legislature's consideration of the

OCSRI, several more public hearings were held and testimony was taken.

In March 1997, NMFS received the final OCSRI for consideration in this

coho salmon listing decision.

Addressing Coho Salmon Factors for Decline

The protective measures contained in the OCSRI represent

commitments by various state agencies (and their stakeholders),

watershed councils, the forest industry, and the Federal government to

address coho salmon ``factors for decline.'' Factors for decline

identified in the OCSRI include: Loss/degradation of riparian areas,

changes in channel morphology, changes in stream substrate, loss of

instream roughness (structure), fish passage impediments, loss of

estuarine rearing habitat, loss of wetlands, water quality degradation/

sedimentation, changes in flow, elimination of habitat, harvest impacts

on spawner escapement, illegal salmon catch, salmon bycatch, low ocean

productivity, loss of genetic adaptation through interbreeding with

genetically dissimilar hatchery fish, competition with hatchery fish,

predation by pinnipeds and sea birds, and interaction with exotic

fishes. The OCSRI incorporates measures presented by state agencies and

their stakeholders as well as Federal agencies to address these factors

for decline.

OCSRI Habitat Measures

The OCSRI organized its habitat measures by the 17 habitat-related

factors for decline listed above. This organization enables an

evaluation of the extent to which the OSCRI's measures influence or

reverse each of the factors for decline. Typically, more than one

management sector (forestry, agriculture, urban, etc.) contributed to

each of the factors for decline. For example, forestry and agricultural

measures both address several factors for decline, including loss of

riparian areas, channel morphology, substrate changes, instream

roughness, water quality and sedimentation (NMFS, 1997b).

On state lands, the Oregon Department of Forestry is preparing a

Northwest Oregon State Forest Management Plan. The State of Oregon has

indicated interest in working with NMFS and FWS on a multiple-species

HCP for approximately 600,000 acres in the Clatsop, Tillamook, and

possibly Elliott State Forests. These HCPs would contain aquatic

conservation strategies that meet the standards of section 10 of the

ESA. Additional HCPs with private landowners may increase the total

acreage managed under protective HCPs within this timeframe.

On private forested lands, the State of Oregon developed new forest

practices regulations (effective July 1995) that represent an

improvement over past forest practices. The OCSRI also provides some

additional voluntary measures on the part of industrial forest

landowners and small woodland owners that focus on OCSRI core areas,

including increased conifer retention in riparian management areas and

in-unit leave tree placement for some fish and non-fish bearing

streams. Another voluntary measure with significant promise is a road

erosion and risk reduction measure that could reduce road-related

sediment inputs, road related mass failures, and culvert problems.

On agricultural lands, the State of Oregon addresses coho salmon

habitat protection and restoration through the 1993 Senate Bill (SB)

1010 (ORS 568.900-933) and its extension, the Healthy Streams

Partnership (HSP). The purpose of SB1010 is to meet the requirements of

the Federal CWA on

[[Page 24604]]

agricultural lands. Complete and successful implementation of the CWA,

and the State's water quality programs, could substantially benefit

coho salmon.

The OCSRI's greatest contribution is that it provides a

comprehensive framework for integrating habitat protection and

restoration efforts by all entities, public and private. An important

innovation is the emphasis upon voluntary citizen action, utilizing the

industry and resource management expertise of local private property

owners. Critical components of the OCSRI that should contribute to

habitat restoration include watershed council programs, monitoring, and

adaptive management described below.

OCSRI Harvest Measures

Overfishing has greatly depleted the coastal coho salmon; it is a

primary factor for the species' decline. Harvest rates on coho salmon

have at times exceeded 80 percent, but have recently been reduced to an

average of less than 15 percent. Ocean harvest of coho salmon stocks is

managed by NMFS in conjunction with the Pacific Fishery Management

Council, the states, and certain tribes. Coho salmon ocean harvest is

managed by setting escapement goals for OCN coho salmon. Due to

concerns over declining population status, directed harvest of coho

salmon has been eliminated since 1994.

The OCSRI establishes a comprehensive, weak-stock management

framework for ensuring that fishing-related mortalities remain at low

levels. The harvest levels may increase in the future, but only

moderately, and only based on (1) substantiated increases in coho

salmon escapement beyond targeted levels, and (2) greater marine

survival that will ensure continued growth of the natural spawning

populations.

More specifically, the OCSRI establishes new, disaggregated

escapement objectives for four component stocks of the existing OCN

coho salmon stock. Harvest rates on each of these four stock components

will be allowed to increase from current levels of 10-13 percent (to a

maximum of 35 percent) only if significant increases are attained in

escapement and productivity. In mixed-stock areas, such as most ocean

waters, harvest rates will be limited by the weakest stock component.

Within any given stock component, terminal and in-river harvest will be

regulated to achieve escapement limits for that component. In addition,

if any individual basin has a severe conservation problem, harvest

within that basin and in mixed-stock areas may be further restricted.

In the near term, Oregon proposes to limit ocean coho salmon

harvest impacts (mostly incidental to the harvest of chinook salmon) to

low levels. As populations achieve abundance and productivity targets,

fisheries may be established to target marked, unlisted hatchery coho

salmon. Ultimately, after high escapement levels have been achieved and

evaluated, specific fisheries may be allowed that take some unmarked,

naturally-produced coho salmon from healthy populations, as other

weaker populations continue to recover. Any downturn in either the

marine survival or escapement targets will result in further

restrictions.

As described in OCSRI's monitoring program, harvest impacts will be

regulated through established, public forums that evaluate the most

recent data on natural escapements, population abundance, direct and

indirect fishing mortalities, and measurements of wild and hatchery

fish survival rates in ocean waters.

OCSRI Hatchery Measures

Hatchery production of coho salmon has been identified as a factor

in the decline of natural coho salmon populations. Past increases in

hatchery programs to enhance sport and commercial fisheries are now

believed to have adversely affected natural populations: Hatchery fish

competed with wild coho salmon for limited food and habitat; stray

hatchery adults spawned, often in excessive numbers, with wild fish,

likely reducing the fitness and productivity of the wild populations.

This problem of genetic introgression was, at times, compounded by the

use of non-local hatchery broodstocks.

Under the OCSRI, coho salmon smolt releases that numbered 6.4

million in 1990 (and were subsequently reduced to 3.5 million in 1996)

will be reduced 64 percent by 1998, thus decreasing adverse competitive

interactions. Hatchery releases will be further reduced or modified, if

necessary, to keep adult stray rates to less than 10 percent, thus

minimizing the effects of genetic introgression. As deemed appropriate

to meet wild fish management needs, hatchery broodstocks will receive

infusion of wild fish to minimize genetic divergence of the

populations.

Oregon has already begun marking all hatchery coho salmon to

differentiate them from naturally-produced fish. This will allow more

accurate assessment of stray rates and allow for any future selective

fisheries on hatchery coho salmon when conditions permit. Artificial

propagation may be used to boost natural coho salmon populations or

reintroduce coho salmon into vacant habitats, but only after specific

management plans are developed and reviewed.

Watershed Councils

Watershed councils are voluntary groups established to improve the

condition of the state's watersheds. Oregon laid the foundation for its

statewide local watershed council program in 1993. That year, House

Bill 2215 set up the program and established two pilot project areas.

Due to the success of the program pilots, in 1995 the legislature

passed House Bill 3441. This law delegates to the Governor's Watershed

Enhancement Board (GWEB) the responsibility to work with local councils

and to coordinate project funding. The GWEB approves funding for only

those projects based on sound principles of watershed management and

encourages the use of nonstructural methods to enhance riparian areas

and associated uplands. The GWEB uses the expertise of state agencies

according to the type of enhancement project in development, and

cooperates with the Federal agencies to ensure integrated efforts.

The premise of the OCSRI is that factors for decline are, and will

continue to be, identified in individual watersheds, and that one of

the primary means to address those factors will be action plans

implemented on a local level involving watershed councils, soil and

water conservation districts (SWCDs), the Oregon State University

Cooperative Extension Service, landowners, local governments,

conservation groups and other grassroots stakeholders. Since 1993, over

60 watershed Councils have been formed in Oregon. The entire Oregon

coast is now represented by local watershed Councils. Three of these

watersheds will be used as model integration projects for the OCSRI.

Two of these, the Applegate and the Coquille Councils, already have

strong programs that will act as a templates for other Councils on the

coast.

Watershed Councils are currently in different stages in their

development of watershed action plans. The action plan is a working

document that characterizes the conditions on the watershed, identifies

priority areas (based on watershed analysis) for restoration and

protection, sets out public involvement strategies, and identifies

funding sources. Currently, Councils in the Rogue and South Coast

[[Page 24605]]

watersheds are participating in an effort to develop a guidance

document that will address the decline of salmon in those basins. A key

to this process is identification of current conditions and trends and

developing an understanding of their causes. The guidance document,

once fully developed, will allow the watershed Councils to update their

action plans and assessments.

Councils generally request participation from local, state,

Federal, and private resource professionals to participate in a

Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). A TAC is a voluntary, scientific,

interdisciplinary, nonpolitical group whose purpose is to provide

advice and guidance on technical issues. A TAC advises Councils on how

to complete a watershed assessment, develop strategic plans, set

priorities, and design and implement projects and monitoring programs.

Since 1994, coastal watershed Council TACs have helped review,

design, and implement over 250 projects (including one riparian

restoration project that involved over 200 private land owners). TACs

have also been heavily involved in developing 11 watershed assessments

and action plans for watershed Councils. The process is continuing.

TACs are being created for new Councils, helping OCSRI, updating

watershed Council action plans and assessments, developing new

watershed Council action plans and assessments, and continuing to

develop, design, and implement on-the-ground projects.

The future success of watershed Councils depends on many factors--

including strong TACs. State agencies have made providing scientific

and technical support for watershed Councils a priority. Under the

OCSRI, state agencies and the Governor have requested new budget

packages that will enable agencies to better meet the increased Council

demands by adding field staff and increasing communication.

Monitoring Results and Adaptive Management

The OCSRI describes a comprehensive, aggressive, and coordinated

monitoring program. Full implementation of the monitoring program is a

crucial tool for adaptive management and the success of the OSCRI.

State and Federal agencies and other groups have made major commitments

to developing and supporting this effort. The objectives of the

monitoring program are to develop accurate information on the status of

salmon populations and their habitats, detect trends in abundance,

determine the effectiveness of measures designed to improve conditions

for salmon, and provide the analysis needed to help develop adaptive

management strategies for agencies, private landowners, watershed

Councils, and individuals. More specifically, monitoring and reporting

at the regional, basin, or subbasin scale will include: (1) Stream

biotic condition and ambient water quality assessments, (2) juvenile

salmon abundance surveys, (3) stream channel and habitat assessments,

(4) spawner abundance surveys, (5) genetic and life history monitoring,

(6) fish propagation monitoring, (7) harvest monitoring, (8) ``core

area'' and ``index area'' population and habitat monitoring, (9) ocean

condition monitoring, (10) estuary and riverine wetland population and

habitat monitoring, (11) Oregon Forest Practices and Northwest Forest

Plan conservation strategy monitoring, and (12) cumulative effects/

watershed assessment for mixed ownership.

For more localized decision making, the key monitoring and

assessment data will be provided on an ongoing basis to agency

managers, watershed Councils and initiative groups, and other

interested participants. Regional interagency groups have been

organized around state agency administrative boundaries. Participants

in the regional groups are lead agency decision-makers for field

operational programs. Relevant watershed assessment efforts and data

will be routinely reported to this group for coordination and

application purposes. The participants of this group are expected to

coordinate with the watershed Councils and SWCDs to ensure they all

receive the same information in a timely manner.

Watershed Councils, SWCDs, and other partners will report the

results of their watershed assessment efforts to the Monitoring Program

coordinator as each module is completed. These results will also be

given to the involved state and Federal agencies to support their day-

to-day decision making.

The interagency monitoring group will convene an annual monitoring

conference at which agencies and other partners will be required to

present the results of their monitoring efforts. This conference will

be used to adjust monitoring efforts and protocols and describe the

habitat and population trends. Annual progress of the OCSRI will be

assessed by comparing these monitoring results and trends with the

OCSRI's published biological objectives. The report (and results of the

conference) will be sent to the IMST established by the Oregon

Legislature (SB 924-B) for its use in auditing the program.

A bipartisan Joint Legislative Committee on Salmon and Stream

Enhancement will receive reports from the IMST including

recommendations for changes to the OCSRI. On the basis of these

reports, and reports of Oregon's Salmon Restoration and Production Task

Force, the Committee may recommend changes to the OSCRI. The annual

Governor's report on the ``State of the Salmon'' will also include

discussion and recommendations based upon the monitoring results. This

report will describe how the monitoring results will be used to adjust

the OSCRI's best management practices (BMPs) and program measures.

Funding for the OCSRI

The Natural Resource Investment Budget (authorized by the 69th

Oregon Legislative Assembly [House Bill 5042 and 5044] for the biennium

beginning July 1, 1997) provides $20 million in new grant funding to

support watershed Council coordinators and other local organizations.

The existing Governor's Watershed Enhancement Board will administer the

grant program. The budget also provides approximately $10 million to

add new technical staff to the Department of Agriculture (19

positions), the Department of Environmental Quality (19 positions), the

Department of Fish and Wildlife (14 positions), the Department of

Forestry (6 positions), the Water Resources Department (4 positions),

and the Department of Land Conservation and Development (1 position).

In addition, Oregon State Police reprogrammed 13 officers for public

education and enforcement of the OCSRI.

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between NMFS and Governor of Oregon

NMFS welcomed adoption of the OCSRI by Oregon and believed it would

provide significant protections for Oregon Coast ESU in a number of

areas. In particular, the harvest and hatchery measures will continue

to contribute to improved spawning escapement and the near-term

population stability of the ESU. NMFS was concerned, however, that the

habitat measures contained in the OCSRI will not secure adequate high

quality habitat over the long term to ensure coho survival under a

range of environmental conditions. To address this concern, NMFS

entered into a MOA in April 1997 with the Governor of Oregon (MOA

1997). Under the MOA, NMFS will provide the state of Oregon guidance on

those specific measures it considers adquate and necessary for habitat

protection. If these or equivalent measures are not adopted by Oregon

within 2 years, NMFS will promptly

[[Page 24606]]

change the ESA status of this ESU to the extent warranted. The MOA

further commits the parties to full implementation of all elements of

the OCSRI, including harvest and hatchery measures and provisions for

monitoring and scientific review.

III. California Efforts. In 1995, the California Resources Agency

initiated its Coastal Salmon Initiative (CSI), a community-oriented

planning effort designed to produce a conservation program based on

voluntary measures and incentives to protect fish and wildlife habitat

in a manner that would protect the economic interests of communities

within the range of coho salmon. The CSI planning process progressed

slowly and was suspended in late 1996, before a comprehensive state

conservation plan for coho salmon in California was developed.

Recently, however, the State of California has proposed instead to

develop and implement a state conservation plan known as the California

Watersheds Protection Program based on the State's Natural Communities

Conservation Planning (NCCP) Act. This conservation program is intended

to provide for the long-term protection and conservation of coho salmon

and other anadromous salmonids on non-Federal lands in California's

coastal watersheds, as well as a means for incidental take

authorization for activities on non-Federal lands. As part of this

conservation effort, the State would convene a Scientific Review Panel

to develop conservation guidelines for the implementation of the

Watershed Protection Program. These guidelines would include

conservation strategies and monitoring protocols necessary to protect

salmonid habitat in coastal watersheds. The State would subsequently

adopt these conservation guidelines under the California Fish and Game

Code and then begin the development of individual watershed protection

plans.

The Governor of California has proposed a $3.8 million Watershed

Initiative to assist in the development and implementation of the

California Watersheds Protection Program. The Governor's Budget

specifically proposes: (1) $1.5 million for CDFG to participate on

inter-agency watershed management team, lead wildlife standard teams,

provide guidance and technical assistance to community-based watershed

groups, and make grants for habitat restoration, (2) $1.0 million for

the state Water Resources Control Board and Regional Boards, for

watershed coordinators who will facilitate prioritization of regulatory

functions on a watershed basis, integrate resources in priority

watersheds, and maximize community involvement in the development and

implementation of water quality control plans, (3) $900,000 for the

Department of Conservation for inter-agency watershed management teams

and for grants to Resource Conservation Districts, and (4) $400,000 for

the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection to lead inter-agency

watershed teams, conduct watershed assessments, and provide geographic

information data base support.

In California, the Range Management Advisory Committee has

developed a Rangeland Water Quality Management Plan for inclusion in

the State's Nonpoint Source Management Plan. Its purpose is to maintain

and improve the quality and associated beneficial uses of surface water

as it passes through and out of rangeland resources in the State. The

programmatic emphasis is on a voluntary, cooperative approach to water

quality management. This includes appropriate technical assistance,

planning mechanisms, program incentives, and regulatory authorities.

This Plan has been favorably received by the State Water Resources

Control Board, EPA, and the BOF.

The state agencies identified in the Governor's Watershed

Initiative have developed budget plans, but the likelihood of funding

and implementation are unknown at this time. Implementation of the

Watershed Initiative will depend on the State Legislature's approval of

the budget request. Specific deficiencies of the Watershed Initiative

are that no funding past the current fiscal cycle is proposed, and

landowner participation in the program is voluntary. NMFS believes that

stakeholder-based solutions at the watershed level are essential to

recovering coho salmon but that adequate long-term funding and full

participation by all stakeholder groups will be necessary for the

state's program to succeed.

Local and private efforts are also underway in California. At least

eight industrial timber landowners are in the process of developing

HCPs that cover approximately 1.2 million acres of privately owned land

in Del Norte, Humboldt, Siskiyou, Trinity, and Mendocino counties. This

acreage includes ownership in the river basins: Smith River, Klamath

River, Redwood Creek, Little River, Mad River, Eel River, and several

smaller coastal streams. NMFS anticipates these landowners will be

submitting applications for ESA section 10 incidental take permits

within the next 6-12 months. These efforts are critical to the

conservation of coho salmon in the Southern Oregon/Northern California

Coast ESU because nearly 50 percent of the land is privately owned.

Long-term sustained gravel mining plans have been, or are being,

developed by three northern California counties (Del Norte, Humboldt,

and Mendocino) which comprise a substantial portion of the Southern

Oregon/Northern California Coast ESU's range in California. The

approach that is being used is to evaluate the impacts of all gravel

extraction projects within a watershed as part of a long-term gravel

mining plan, and then obtain a Letter of Permission (LOP) from the COE

to approve graveling mining projects at the county level. The LOPs

would be issued for a period of 3 years and would require annual

monitoring reports on gravel recruitment, river geomorphology, and

fisheries. Humboldt County currently has an LOP in-place and Del Norte

and Mendocino Counties are in the process of obtaining their LOPs. NMFS

will be working with the counties and the COE to ensure that any LOPs

issued for gravel mining are protective of coho salmon.

Timber, farming, and fishing interests formed the Fish, Forests,

and Farms Community (FFFC) organization in California in an effort to

address land management and fisheries issues related to salmon and

steelhead listings in California. The FFFC has focused its efforts in:

(1) Promoting research projects to improve the scientific knowledge

regarding salmonid life histories and habitat requirements in coastal

watersheds, and (2) developing standardized protocols for biological

and physical assessment and monitoring of anadromous fish habitat and

populations in coastal watersheds. The FFFC has made important progress

to date, and it should be recognized for its efforts to bring together

multiple and diverse interests. More importantly, FFFC is attempting to

fill a void for standardizing data collection and to quantify technical

processes that should eventually lead to a better scientific

understanding of coho salmon.

In 1996, the California Forestry Association established the Forest

Science Project (FSP) at Humboldt State University. The purpose of the

industry-sponsored FSP is to acquire, compile, and disseminate baseline

biological and habitat information being developed by private timber

companies operating within the California portion of the Southern

Oregon/Northern California Coast ESU. The timber industry expects to

continue this on-going effort to compile and synthesize biological,

[[Page 24607]]

habitat, and other types of data, and has expressed interest in

developing a process with NMFS that would assure that such data are

available for future decision making.

Local habitat restoration and planning efforts are also currently

ongoing in several watersheds that should contribute to the

conservation of coho salmon in the Southern Oregon/Northern California

Coast ESU. These include efforts by the Scott River Watershed Committee

and French Creek Watershed Advisory Group in the Scott River watershed,

the Shasta River Project (Shasta River watershed), the South Fork

Trinity River (South Fork Trinity River), and the Mattole Restoration

Council (Mattole River). In several counties within the range of the

Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast ESU, there are county-based

Resource Conservation Districts (RCDs) that are providing the focus for

agricultural and local conservation groups to use Federal grants to

develop and prioritize restoration plans.

An extensive network of RCDs exists within the range of coho salmon

in the Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast ESU. These RCDs

represent an important vehicle through which the agricultural community

can voluntarily address and correct management practices that impact

coho salmon and its habitat, and their potential is significant.

Working with individual landowners or through organizations such as the

California Farm Bureau, these RCDs can assist landowners in developing

and implementing best management practices that are protective of

salmonids, including coho salmon. NMFS believes that the conservation

and recovery of coho salmon in California will require the active

participation of the agriculture community.

Finding and Withdrawal

Based on its assessment of the best available information, NMFS has

determined that the Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast and the

Oregon Coast coho salmon ESUs constitute distinct ``species'' under the

ESA. NMFS has further determined that the Oregon Coast ESU does not

warrant listing at this time, and that the Southern Oregon/Northern

California Coast ESU does warrant listing as a threatened species.

Accordingly, NMFS is listing the Southern Oregon/Northern California

Coast coho salmon ESU as threatened. NMFS will consider the Oregon

Coast coho salmon ESU to be a candidate species and will review its

listing status in 3 years (or earlier if warranted by new information).

NMFS will publish shortly in the Federal Register protective

regulations, pursuant to ESA section 4(d), which will apply the ESA

section 9(a) prohibitions to the listed ESU, with certain exceptions.

NMFS does not expect those regulations to become effective before July

1, 1997.

Oregon Coast Coho Salmon ESU

Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA provides that the Secretary shall

make a listing determination solely on the basis of the best scientific

and commercial data available, after conducting a review of the

species' status and ``after taking into account those efforts * * *

being made by any state or foreign nation * * * to protect such

species, whether by predator control, protection of habitat and food

supply, or other conservation practices, within an area under its

jurisdiction.'' NMFS has carefully considered the conclusions of the

scientists on NMFS' Biological Review Team (BRT) regarding the species'

status and has taken into account the OCSRI, the NFP and other actions

that protect coho in this ESU.

The scientists on the BRT generally agreed that implementation of

the harvest and hatchery measures of the OCSRI would have a positive

effect on the status of the ESU. Previous harvest rate reductions on

Oregon coastal coho, as refined and continued in the OCSRI, will

continue to contribute to improved spawning escapement and near-term

population stability of the Oregon coast ESU. The BRT expressed the

view that these harvest and hatchery reforms may substantially reduce

the short-term risk of extinction. The BRT was about evenly split as to

whether the effects of these reforms would be substantial enough to

move the ESU out of the ``likely to become endangered'' category. Some

members felt that, in addition to the extinction buffer provided by the

estimated 80,000 naturally produced spawners in 1996, the reforms would

promote higher escapements and alleviate genetic concerns enough that

the ESU would not be at significant risk of extinction or endangerment

in the foreseeable future. Other members were not convinced that the

hatchery and harvest reforms by themselves would be sufficient to

alleviate risk due to declining productivity and habitat degradation.

Habitat degradation was one of the primary concerns of the BRT in

evaluating long-term risks to this ESU. The BRT concluded that while

the harvest and hatchery improvements may substantially reduce the

short-term risk of extinction, habitat protection and restoration are

key to ensuring the long-term survival of the ESU, especially under

variable and unpredictable future climate conditions. There were two

primary concerns with respect to habitat: First, that the habitat

capacity for coho salmon within the range of the ESU has significantly

decreased from historical levels; and, second, that preliminary results

of the Nickelson-Lawson model predicted that, during poor ocean

survival periods, only high quality habitat is capable of sustaining

coho populations, and subpopulations dependent on medium and low

quality habitats would be likely to go extinct. Both of these concerns

caused the BRT to consider risks from habitat loss and degradation to

be relatively high for this ESU.

The previous section of this document describes the Federal NFP and

the OCSRI adopted by Oregon to protect and restore Oregon coastal coho

salmon stocks. The NFP, which covers 35 percent of the geographic range

of this ESU, will provide a high level of protection for coho habitat

into the future. The OCSRI also contains many programs that will

improve habitat conditions. The forest practices regulations adopted by

Oregon in 1995 provide improvements over past practices, and the

measures regarding agricultural practices should result in improvements

in water quality. Overall, however, the habitat measures of the OCSRI

do not currently provide the protections NMFS considers essential to

creating and maintaining the high quality habitat needed to sustain

Oregon Coast coho over the long term across a range of environmental

conditions.

The OCSRI contains the tools necessary to ensure that adequate

habitat measures are ultimately adopted and implemented: a

comprehensive monitoring program, scientific review, and an adaptive

management program. Natural escapement has been increasing markedly in

recent years and reached 80,000 fish in 1996. On the basis of the

harvest and hatchery improvements together with the habitat protections

in the NFP and given the improving trends in escapement, the Oregon

Coast coho is not likely to become endangered in the interval between

this decision and the adoption of improved habitat measures by the

State of Oregon. Under the April 1997 MOA between NMFS and the Governor

of Oregon (MOA, 1997), described in the previous section, NMFS will

propose to Oregon additional forest practices modifications necessary

to provide adequate habitat conditions for coho. If these or other

comparable protections are not adopted within 2 years, NMFS will act

promptly

[[Page 24608]]

to change the ESA status of this ESU to whatever extent may be

warranted.

Because the determination not to list the Oregon Coast ESU relies

heavily on continued implementation of the OCSRI (in accordance with

the MOA), including the enactment of improved habitat protective

measures, NMFS intends to review this listing determination no later

than the conclusion of 3 years (which represents one full life cycle

and 3 year classes of coho salmon) or at any time sooner if substantive

new information warrants consideration. During the interim, NMFS is

designating the Oregon Coast ESU as a candidate species under the ESA

and will continue to monitor the ESU's status as well as the efficacy

of the OCSRI and other conservation measures.

Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast Coho Salmon ESU

Coho salmon populations are very depressed in this ESU, currently

numbering fewer than 10,000 naturally-produced adults. The threats to

this ESU are numerous and varied as described elsewhere in this

document. Several human-caused factors, including habitat degradation,

harvest, and artificial propagation, exacerbate the adverse effects of

natural environmental variability brought about by drought, floods, and

poor ocean conditions. NMFS has determined that existing regulatory

mechanisms over the ESU as a whole are either inadequate or not

implemented well enough to conserve this ESU. While conservation

efforts are underway for some populations in this ESU, particularly in

the Oregon portion of the ESU, they are not considered sufficient to

reduce the risk that the ESU as a whole will become endangered in the

foreseeable future. Accordingly, NMFS concludes that this ESU warrants

listing as threatened. NMFS will issue shortly protective regulations

that will apply the section 9(a) prohibitions to this ESU, with certain

exceptions.

As described in the BRT status reviews (Weitkamp et al., 1995;

NMFS, 1997a) and the proposed listing determination for west coast coho

salmon (July 25, 1995, 60 FR 38011), NMFS defines the Southern Oregon/

Northern California Coast coho salmon ESU to include all naturally

spawned populations of coho salmon (and their progeny) that are part of

the biological ESU and reside below long-term, naturally impassible

barriers in streams between Punta Gorda (CA) and Cape Blanco (OR). NMFS

has also evaluated the status of seven hatchery stocks of coho salmon

presently reared and released within the range of this ESU (NMFS,

1997a). Two of these hatchery stocks from California are either not

considered part of the ESU (Mad River Hatchery) or are of uncertain

relationship to the ESU (Iron Gate Hatchery). In contrast, NMFS has

concluded that fish from four California hatchery populations (Mattole

River, Eel River, Trinity River, and Rowdy Creek) and Oregon's Rogue

River hatchery stock should be included in the definition of this ESU.

None of these five hatchery stocks considered part of this ESU are

presently deemed ``essential'' for its recovery, hence these hatchery

fish are not being listed at this time. However, NMFS has determined

that two of the hatchery populations may play an important role in

recovery efforts: Mattole River, because the natural population is very

depressed, and the Trinity River, because there appears to be

essentially no natural production in the basin. It is important to note

that the determination that a hatchery stock is not ``essential'' for

recovery does not preclude it from playing a role in recovery. Any

hatchery population that is part of the ESU is available for use in

recovery if conditions warrant. In this context, an ``essential''

hatchery population is one that is vital to fully incorporate into

recovery efforts (for example, if the associated natural population(s)

were extinct or at high risk of extinction). Under these circumstances,

NMFS would consider taking the administrative action of listing the

existing hatchery fish.

NMFS' ``Interim Policy on Artificial Propagation of Pacific Salmon

Under the Endangered Species Act'' (58 FR 17573, April 5, 1993)

provides guidance on the treatment of hatchery stocks in the event of a

listing. Under this policy, ``progeny of fish from the listed species

that are propagated artificially are considered part of the listed

species and are protected under the ESA.'' In the case of Oregon's

Rogue River hatchery (Cole Rivers), the protective regulations that

NMFS will issue shortly will exempt take of naturally spawned listed

fish for use as broodstock as part of an overall conservation program.

According to the interim policy, the progeny of these hatchery-wild

crosses would also be listed. NMFS has determined in this case,

however, not to consider hatchery-reared progeny of intentional

hatchery-wild crosses as listed. The Rogue River natural population is

relatively abundant, the take of naturally spawned fish for broodstock

purposes is specifically limited, and the BRT concluded that this

hatchery population was not essential for recovery, nor does it have an

important role to play in recovery. NMFS therefore concludes that it is

not inconsistent with NMFS' interim policy, nor with the policy and

purposes of the ESA, to consider these progeny as part of the ESU but

not listed.

Critical Habitat

Section 4(a)(3)(A) of the ESA requires that, to the extent prudent

and determinable, critical habitat be designated concurrently with the

listing of a species. NMFS has completed its analysis of the biological

status of the Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast ESU but has not

completed the analysis necessary for the designation of critical

habitat. NMFS has decided to proceed with the final listing

determination now and to proceed with the designation of critical

habitat in a separate rulemaking. Section 4(b)(6)(C)(ii) provides that,

where critical habitat is not determinable at the time of final

listing, NMFS may extend the period for designating critical habitat by

not more than 1 additional year. Congress further stated in the 1982

amendments to the ESA, ``where the biology relating to the status of

the species is clear, it should not be denied the protection of the Act

because of the inability of the Secretary to complete the work

necessary to designate critical habitat.'' (H. Rep. No. 567, 97th

Cong., 2d Sess. 19, 1982). NMFS believes that proceeding with this

final listing determination, even though critical habitat has not been

designated, is appropriate and necessary to protect this ESU and is

consistent with congressional direction.

NMFS further concludes that critical habitat is not determinable at

this time, because information sufficient to perform the required

analysis of the impacts of the designation is lacking. NMFS has

solicited information necessary to designate critical habitat in its

proposed rule (60 FR 38011, July 25, 1995) and will consider such

information in the proposed designation. Specifically, designation

requires a determination of those physical and biological features that

are essential to the conservation of the species and that may require

special management considerations or protection. It further requires

the consideration of an economic analysis of the impacts of the

designation. These analyses have not yet been completed, and,

therefore, critical habitat is not determinable at this time. NMFS is

extending the period for the designation of critical habitat by not

more than 1 additional year.

[[Page 24609]]

Available Conservation Measures

Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or

threatened under the ESA include recognition, recovery actions, Federal

agency consultation requirements, and prohibitions on taking.

Recognition through listing promotes public awareness and conservation

actions by Federal, state, and local agencies, private organizations,

and individuals.

With respect to the Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast coho

salmon ESU, several efforts are underway (described previously) that

may slow or reverse the decline of coho salmon in this ESU. The NMFS

intends to move rapidly during the next year to work with Federal,

state, and tribal entities to develop and implement a comprehensive

strategy to halt the decline and begin the recovery of coho salmon

populations within this ESU. Because a substantial portion of land in

this ESU is in private ownership (approximately 46 percent),

conservation measures on private lands will be key to protecting and

recovering coho salmon in this ESU.

Section 4(d) of the ESA directs the Secretary to implement

regulations ``to provide for the conservation of [threatened]

species,'' that may include extending any or all of the prohibitions of

section 9 to threatened species. Section 9(a)(1)(g) also prohibits

violations of protective regulations for threatened species implemented

under section 4(d). NMFS will issue shortly protective regulations

pursuant to section 4(d) for the conservation of the species.

For listed species, section 7(a)(2) of the ESA 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 Federal

action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the

responsible Federal agency must enter into consultation with NMFS.

Examples of Federal actions most likely to be affected by listing

this ESU include COE section 404 permitting activities under the CWA,

COE section 10 permitting activities under the River and Harbors Act,

FERC licensing and relicensing for non-Federal development and

operation of hydropower, EPA implementation of TMDLs and 303(c) water

quality standards, and NRCS funded activities. These actions will

likely be subject to ESA section 7 consultation requirements that may

result in conditions designed to achieve the intended purpose of the

project and avoid or reduce impacts to coho salmon and its habitat

within the range of the listed ESU.

There are likely to be Federal actions ongoing in the range of the

Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast ESU at the time that this

listing becomes effective. Therefore, NMFS will review all on-going

actions that may affect the listed species with the Federal agencies

and will complete formal or informal consultations, where requested or

necessary, for such actions as appropriate, pursuant to ESA section

7(a)(2).

Sections 10(a)(1)(A) and 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA provide NMFS with

authority to grant exceptions to the ESA's ``taking'' prohibitions (see

regulations at 50 CFR 222.22 through 222.24). Section 10(a)(1)(A)

scientific research and enhancement permits may be issued to entities

(Federal and non-Federal) conducting research that involves directed

take of listed species.

NMFS has issued section 10(a)(1)(A) research or enhancement permits

for other listed species (e.g., Snake River chinook salmon, Sacramento

River winter-run chinook salmon) for a number of activities, including

trapping and tagging to determine population distribution and

abundance, and collection of adult fish for artificial propagation

programs. NMFS is aware of several sampling efforts for coho salmon in

the Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast ESU, including efforts by

Federal and state fisheries agencies, and private landowners. These and

other research efforts could provide critical information regarding

coho salmon distribution and population abundance.

Section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permits may be issued to non-

Federal entities to authorize take of listed species incidental to

otherwise lawful activities. The types of activities potentially

requiring a section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permit include the

operation and funding of hatcheries and release of artificially

propagated fish by the state, state or university research not

receiving Federal authorization or funding, the implementation of state

fishing regulations, and timber harvest activities on non-Federal

lands.

Classification

The 1982 amendments to the ESA, in section 4(b)(1)(A), restrict the

information that may be considered when assessing species for listing.

Based on this limitation of criteria for a listing decision and the

opinion in Pacific Legal Foundation v. Andrus, 675 F. 2d 825 (6th Cir.,

1981), NMFS has categorically excluded all ESA listing actions from the

environmental assessment requirements of NEPA (48 FR 4413, February 6,

1984).

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

ESA, economic considerations have no relevance to determinations

regarding the status of the species. Therefore, the economic analysis

requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act are not applicable to

the listing process. Similarly, this final rule is exempt from review

under E.O. 12866.

References

The comple

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.