Endangered and Threatened Species: Withdrawal of Proposals to List and Designate Critical Habitat for the Oregon Coast Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) of Coho Salmon, 3033-3048 [06-502]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 12 (Thursday, January 19, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3033-3048]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-502]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 223

[Docket No. 051227348-5348-01; I.D. 020105C]


Endangered and Threatened Species: Withdrawal of Proposals to 
List and Designate Critical Habitat for the Oregon Coast Evolutionarily 
Significant Unit (ESU) of Coho Salmon

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

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: In June 2004, we (NMFS) proposed that the Oregon Coast coho 
Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) (Oncorhynchus kisutch) be listed 
as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). In June 
2005, we extended the 1-year deadline for the final listing 
determination by 6 months in light of public comments received and an 
assessment by the State of Oregon concluding that the Oregon Coast coho 
ESU is viable (that is, likely to persist into the foreseeable future 
under current conditions). After considering the best available 
scientific and commercial information available, we have concluded that 
the ESU is not in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant 
portion of its range, nor is it likely to become so within the 
foreseeable future. We have determined that the Oregon Coast coho ESU 
does not warrant listing as an endangered or threatened species under 
the ESA at this time. Therefore we have decided to withdraw the 
proposed rule to list this ESU. On December 14, 2004, we proposed 
critical habitat for the Oregon Coast coho ESU. Because we are 
withdrawing the proposed listing determination, we are also withdrawing 
the proposed rule to designate critical habitat for this ESU.

ADDRESSES: NMFS, Protected Resources Division, 1201 NE Lloyd Boulevard, 
Suite 1100, Portland, Oregon, 97232.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Scott Rumsey, NMFS, Northwest 
Region, Protected Resources Division, at (503) 872-2791, or Marta 
Nammack, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, at (301) 713-1401. 
Reference materials regarding this determination are available upon 
request or on the Internet at https://www.nwr.noaa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Previous Federal ESA Actions Related to Oregon Coast Coho

    In 1995, we completed a comprehensive status review of West Coast 
coho salmon (Weitkamp et al., 1995) that resulted in proposed listing 
determinations for three coho ESUs, including a proposal to list the 
Oregon Coast coho ESU as a threatened species (60 FR 38011; July 25, 
1995). On October 31, 1996, we announced a 6-month extension of the 
final listing determination for the ESU, pursuant to section 
4(b)(6)(B)(i) of the ESA, noting substantial disagreement regarding the 
sufficiency and accuracy of the available data relevant to the 
assessment of extinction risk and the evaluation of protective efforts 
(61 FR 56211). On May 6, 1997, we withdrew the proposal to list the 
Oregon Coast coho ESU as threatened, based in part on conservation 
measures contained in the Oregon Coastal Salmon Restoration Initiative 
(later renamed the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds; hereafter 
referred to as the Oregon Plan) and an April 23, 1997, Memorandum of 
Agreement (MOA) between NMFS and the State of Oregon which further 
defined Oregon's commitment to salmon conservation (62 FR 24588). We 
concluded that implementation of harvest and hatchery reforms, and 
habitat protection and restoration efforts under the Oregon Plan and 
the MOA substantially reduced the risk of extinction faced by the 
Oregon Coast coho ESU. On June 1, 1998, the Federal District Court for 
the District of Oregon issued an opinion finding that our May 6, 1997, 
determination to not list Oregon Coast coho was arbitrary and 
capricious (Oregon Natural Resources Council v. Daley, 6 F. Supp. 2d 
1139 (D. Or. 1998)). The Court vacated our determination to withdraw 
the proposed rule to list the Oregon Coast coho ESU and remanded the 
determination to NMFS for further consideration. On August 10, 1998, we 
issued a final rule listing the Oregon Coast coho ESU as threatened (63 
FR 42587), basing the determination solely on the information and data 
contained in the 1995 status review (Weitkamp et al., 1995) and the 
1997 proposed rule (62 FR 24588; May 6, 1997).
    In 2001 the U.S. District Court in Eugene, Oregon, set aside the 
1998 threatened listing of the Oregon Coast

[[Page 3034]]

coho ESU (Alsea Valley Alliance v. Evans, 161 F. Supp. 2d 1154, (D. Or. 
2001)) (Alsea decision). In response to the Alsea ruling and several 
listing and delisting petitions, we announced that we would conduct an 
updated status review of 27 West Coast salmonid ESUs, including the 
Oregon Coast coho ESU (67 FR 6215, February 11, 2002; 67 FR 48601, July 
25, 2002).
    In 2003 we convened the Pacific Salmonid Biological Review Team 
(BRT) (an expert panel of scientists from several Federal agencies 
including NMFS, FWS, and the U.S. Geological Survey) to review the 
viability and extinction risk of naturally spawning populations in the 
27 ESUs under review, including the Oregon Coast coho ESU (Good et al., 
2005; NMFS, 2003b). A slight majority of the BRT concluded that the 
naturally spawning populations in the Oregon Coast coho ESU were likely 
to become endangered, noting that short-term risks were alleviated by 
encouraging high escapements in recent years. The BRT noted 
considerable uncertainty regarding the future viability of the ESU 
given the uncertainty in predicting future ocean conditions for coho 
survival, as well as uncertainty in whether current freshwater habitats 
are of sufficient quality and quantity to support the recent high 
abundance levels and sustain populations during future downturns in 
ocean conditions. Although the BRT couched its conclusion in terms of 
the statutory definition (that is, not in danger of extinction, likely 
to become endangered in the foreseeable future), the BRT's conclusion 
is not a recommendation to list species. Rather, it is information for 
the decision-maker, who must also consider the risks and benefits from 
artificial propagation programs included in the ESU, efforts being made 
to protect the species, and any other information available to the 
agency, and must then weigh that information in light of the five 
factors listed under section 4(a)(1) of the ESA.
    On June 14, 2004, based on the BRT report, we proposed to list the 
Oregon Coast coho ESU as a threatened species (69 FR 33102). In the 
proposed rule, we noted that Oregon was initiating a comprehensive 
assessment of the viability of the Oregon Coast coho ESU and of the 
adequacy of actions under the Oregon Plan for conserving Oregon Coast 
coho (and other salmonids in Oregon). Following an initial public 
comment period of 90 days, the public comment period was extended twice 
for an additional 36 and 22 days, respectively (69 FR 53031, August 31, 
2004; 69 FR 61348, October 18, 2004).
    In January 2005 the State of Oregon released a draft Oregon Coastal 
Coho Assessment (draft assessment), which (1) evaluated the current 
viability of the Oregon Coast coho ESU, and (2) evaluated the certainty 
of implementation and effectiveness of the Oregon Plan measures in 
addressing the factors for decline of the Oregon Coast coho ESU. The 
latter evaluation was intended to satisfy the joint NMFS--U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service's Policy on Evaluating Conservation Efforts (``PECE''; 
68 FR 15100, March 28, 2003). Oregon's draft assessment concluded that 
the Oregon Coast coho ESU is currently viable and that measures under 
the Oregon Plan have stopped, if not reversed, the deterioration of 
Oregon Coast coho habitats. The draft assessment also concluded that it 
is highly likely that existing monitoring efforts will detect any 
significant future deterioration in the ESU's viability, or degradation 
of environmental condition, allowing a timely and appropriate response 
to conserve the ESU. On February 9, 2005, we published a notice of 
availability of Oregon's draft assessment for public review and comment 
in the Federal Register (70 FR 6840) and noted that information 
presented in the draft and final assessments would be considered in 
developing the final listing determination for the Oregon Coast coho 
ESU. The public comment period on Oregon's draft assessment extended 
through March 11, 2005.
    We received 15 comments on Oregon's draft assessment, and on March 
18, 2005, we forwarded these comments, as well as our technical review 
(NMFS, 2005b) and that of NMFS' Northwest Fisheries Science Center 
(NWFSC) (NMFS, 2005a), for Oregon's consideration in developing its 
final assessment. The public comments and our review highlighted areas 
of uncertainty or disagreement regarding the sufficiency and accuracy 
of Oregon's draft assessment, including: the assumption that Oregon 
Coast coho populations are inherently resilient at low abundance, and 
that this compensatory response will prevent extinction during periods 
of low marine survival; the apparent de-emphasis of abundance as a 
useful indicator of extinction risk; assumptions regarding the duration 
and severity of future periods of unfavorable marine and freshwater 
conditions; the ability of monitoring and adaptive management efforts 
to detect population declines or habitat degradation, and to identify 
and implement necessary protective measures; and the ability of Oregon 
Plan measures to halt or reverse habitat degradation once detected.
    On May 13, 2005, Oregon issued its final Oregon Coastal Coho 
Assessment (final assessment). Oregon's final assessment includes a 
summary of, and response to, the comments received on the draft 
assessment, and includes several substantive changes intended to 
address concerns raised regarding the sufficiency and accuracy of the 
draft assessment. Oregon's final assessment concludes that: (1) The 
Oregon Coast coho ESU is viable under current conditions, and should be 
sustainable through a future period of adverse environmental conditions 
(including a prolonged period of poor ocean productivity); (2) given 
the assessed viability of the ESU, the quality and quantity of habitat 
is necessarily sufficient to support a viable ESU; and (3) the 
integration of laws, adaptive management programs, and monitoring 
efforts under the Oregon Plan will maintain and improve environmental 
conditions and the viability of the ESU into the foreseeable future.
    On June 28, 2005 (70 FR 37217), we announced a 6-month extension of 
the final listing determination for the Oregon Coast coho ESU, finding 
that ``there is substantial disagreement regarding the sufficiency or 
accuracy of the available data relevant to the determination * * * for 
the purposes of soliciting additional data'' (section 4(b)(6)(B)(i)). 
We announced a 30-day public comment period to solicit information 
regarding the validity of Oregon's final assessment, particularly in 
light of the concerns raised with respect to Oregon's draft assessment.

Statutory Framework for ESA Listing Determinations

    The ESA defines an endangered species as one that is in danger of 
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and a 
threatened species as one that is likely to become endangered in the 
foreseeable future (Sections 3(6) and 3(20), respectively). The statute 
requires us to determine whether any species is endangered or 
threatened because of any of five factors: the present or threatened 
destruction of its habitat, overexploitation, disease or predation, the 
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, or any other natural or 
manmade factors (Section 4(a)(1)(A)(E)). We are to make this 
determination based solely on the best available scientific information 
after conducting a review of the status of the species and taking into 
account any efforts being made by states or foreign governments to 
protect the species. The focus of our evaluation of these five

[[Page 3035]]

factors is to evaluate whether and to what extent a given factor 
represents a threat to the future survival of the species. The focus of 
our consideration of protective efforts is to evaluate whether these 
efforts substantially have and will continue to address the identified 
threats and so ameliorate a species' risk of extinction. In making our 
listing determination, we must consider all factors that may affect the 
future viability of the species, including whether regulatory and 
conservation programs are inadequate and allow threats to the species 
to persist or worsen, or whether these programs are likely to mitigate 
threats to the species and reduce its extinction risk. The steps we 
follow in implementing this statutory scheme are to: review the status 
of the species, analyze the factors listed in section 4(a)(1) of the 
ESA to identify threats facing the species, assess whether certain 
protective efforts mitigate these threats, and make our best prediction 
about the species' future persistence.

Policy for the Evaluation of Conservation Efforts

    As noted above, the PECE provides direction for considering 
protective efforts identified in conservation agreements, conservation 
plans, management plans, or similar documents (developed by Federal 
agencies, state and local governments, tribal governments, businesses, 
organizations, and individuals) that have not yet been implemented, or 
have been implemented but have not yet demonstrated effectiveness. The 
policy articulates several criteria for evaluating the certainty of 
implementation and effectiveness of protective efforts to aid in 
determining whether a species warrants listing under the ESA. 
Evaluation of the certainty that an effort will be implemented includes 
whether: the necessary resources (e.g., funding and staffing) are 
available; the requisite agreements have been formalized such that the 
necessary authority and regulatory mechanisms are in place; there is a 
schedule for completion and evaluation of the stated objectives; and 
(for voluntary efforts) the necessary incentives are in place to ensure 
adequate participation. The evaluation of the certainty of an effort's 
effectiveness is made on the basis of whether the effort or plan: 
establishes specific conservation objectives; identifies the necessary 
steps to reduce threats or factors for decline; includes quantifiable 
performance measures for the monitoring of compliance and 
effectiveness; incorporates the principles of adaptive management; and 
is likely to improve the species' viability at the time of the listing 
determination.
    PECE also notes several important caveats. Satisfaction of the 
above mentioned criteria for implementation and effectiveness 
establishes a given protective effort as a candidate for consideration, 
but does not mean that an effort will ultimately change the risk 
assessment. The policy stresses that, just as listing determinations 
must be based on the viability of the species at the time of review, so 
they must be based on the state of protective efforts at the time of 
the listing determination. The PECE does not provide explicit guidance 
on how protective efforts affecting only a portion of a species' range 
may affect a listing determination, other than to say that such efforts 
will be evaluated in the context of other efforts being made and the 
species' overall viability.

Overview of the Oregon Plan

    The Oregon Plan is a ``framework of state laws, rules, and 
executive orders designed to enhance and protect watershed health, at-
risk species, and water quality by governing forest and agricultural 
practices, water diversions, wetlands, water quality, and fish and 
wildlife protections'' (Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board, OWEB, 
2002). The Oregon Plan includes several pre-existing activities and 
regulatory and non-regulatory programs, as well as additional 
coordination, compliance, investment, monitoring, and voluntary 
involvement that are provided under the umbrella of the Oregon Plan. 
The mission of the Oregon Plan is to restore the watersheds of Oregon 
and recover the fish and wildlife populations of those watersheds to 
productive and sustainable levels in a manner that provides substantial 
environmental, cultural, and economic benefits (IMST, 2002). The Oregon 
Plan seeks to address factors for decline related to habitat loss and 
degradation by focusing on human infrastructure and activities that can 
adversely affect salmonids and their habitat (e.g., fisheries 
management, hatchery practices, fish passage barriers, forestry, 
agriculture, livestock grazing, water diversions and fish screens, 
urbanization, permitted pollutant discharges, and removal and fill 
permits). The Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team (IMST), the 
independent expert panel that provides scientific oversight for the 
Oregon Plan, has previously reviewed the adequacy of various elements 
of the Oregon Plan in addressing historically harmful practices, 
identifying and monitoring threats impeding population- and ESU-level 
viability, and restoring degraded salmon habitats (e.g., IMST, 1998; 
1999; 2002a; 2002b). Oregon's recent assessment is the first effort, 
however, to consider the effect of actions and measures under the 
Oregon Plan at an ESU scale.

Overview of Oregon's Assessment

    Oregon's assessment was a comprehensive effort including all state 
natural resource agencies and several Federal partners. Oregon's 
assessment represents an unprecedented, rigorous analysis of the 
viability of the Oregon Coast coho ESU, past and continuing threats to 
coho populations and the ESU, and protective efforts under the Oregon 
Plan aimed at addressing the factors associated with the ESU's decline.
    Oregon's assessment includes several elements that inform our 
consideration under each of the listing determination steps: reviewing 
the status of the species, identifying threats facing the species, 
assessing whether certain protective efforts mitigate these threats, 
and making a reasonable prediction about the species' future 
persistence (see the ``Statutory Framework for Making ESA Listing 
Determinations'' section, above). Oregon's assessment includes a 
viability analysis that directly informs our review of the status of 
the species. Oregon's assessment also includes a review of a variety of 
regulatory mechanisms and conservation programs under the Oregon Plan, 
using PECE as a conceptual framework for its analysis. Not all aspects 
of the Oregon Plan, however, are properly reviewed under PECE, which 
focuses on programs not yet implemented or not yet having demonstrated 
effectiveness. The information included in Oregon's ``PECE'' analysis 
informs our consideration of the five ESA Section 4(a)(1) factors by 
identifying present or future threats to the viability of the Oregon 
Coast coho ESU. Oregon's PECE analysis also informs our consideration 
of protective efforts and whether they substantially ameliorate 
identified threats and reduce the ESU's risk of extinction. Some 
protective efforts under the Oregon Plan are fully implemented, and 
information is available demonstrating their level of effectiveness. 
Other protective efforts under the Oregon Plan are new, not yet 
implemented, or have not demonstrated effectiveness. We evaluate such 
unproven efforts using the criteria outlined in PECE to determine their 
certainties of implementation and effectiveness.
    Oregon's viability analysis concluded that the Oregon Coast coho 
ESU is currently viable, with the component

[[Page 3036]]

populations generally demonstrating sufficient abundance, productivity, 
distribution, and diversity to be sustained under the current and 
foreseeable range of future environmental conditions. Oregon based its 
conclusion largely on its findings that (1) the Oregon Coast coho 
populations exhibit strong density dependence conferring resilience in 
periods of low population abundance, (2) there are sufficient high 
quality habitats within the ESU to sustain productivity during periods 
of adverse environmental conditions; (3) current harvest regulations 
and hatchery reforms adequately address past harmful practices; (4) the 
ESU is resilient in long periods of poor ocean survival conditions; and 
(5) measures under the Oregon Plan make it unlikely that habitat 
conditions will be degraded further in the future.
    In assessing the threats facing the Oregon Coast coho ESU, Oregon 
acknowledged in its final assessment that a number of adverse 
environmental conditions could coincide posing a severe threat to the 
ESU's viability. However, Oregon concluded that the ESU has 
demonstrated the ability to remain viable during such a convergence of 
adverse conditions, such as had occurred in the 1990s, and to rebound 
quickly once conditions had moderated. Oregon concluded that the life 
cycle, productivity, and spatial structure of Oregon Coast coho provide 
protection and reduce the likelihood that catastrophic events would 
result in the ESU not being viable in the foreseeable future. Oregon 
acknowledged that ocean conditions and stream habitat complexity remain 
moderate threats for the ESU, but concluded that past threats from high 
harvest rates, poor hatchery practices, blockages to fish passage, and 
impaired water quality and quantity have been substantially reduced 
under the Oregon Plan. Oregon concluded that the significant reductions 
in these threats are manifested in the present viability of the ESU. 
Oregon underscored that, although the ocean environment for Oregon 
Coast coho survival has improved since the 1990s, future ocean 
conditions are highly uncertain.
    Oregon's viability conclusion was not predicated on a finding that 
specific conservation measures under the Oregon Plan provide sufficient 
certainty of implementation and effectiveness to substantially 
ameliorate risks facing the ESU. Rather, its conclusion was based on 
the past and present biological performance of, and threats facing, the 
ESU.
    The difference between Oregon's conclusion that the ESU is likely 
to persist into the foreseeable future, and the 2003 BRT's slight 
majority conclusion that it is not, rests on two major components that 
both considered: the adequacy of current habitat conditions to support 
future persistence, and the uncertainty about future ocean conditions. 
(In our review of Oregon's assessment, we raised concerns about two 
other aspects of the analysis: (1) Assumptions in Oregon's model about 
productivity at low population size; and (2) assumptions about minimum 
abundance thresholds. These were not part of the 2003 BRT assessment 
because the BRT did not conduct population viability modeling).

Summary of Comments Received

    We solicited public comment on the proposed listing determination 
for the Oregon Coast coho ESU, and on Oregon's draft and final 
assessments, for 208 days (69 FR 33102, June 14, 2004; 69 FR 53031, 
August 31, 2004; 69 FR 61348, October 18, 2004; 70 FR 6840, February 9, 
2005; 70 FR 37217, June 28, 2005). In addition, we held eight public 
hearings in the Pacific Northwest concerning the June 2004 West Coast 
salmon and steelhead proposed listing determinations, including the 
proposed determination for the Oregon Coast coho ESU (69 FR 53031, 
August 31, 2004; 69 FR 61348, October 18, 2004).
    A joint NMFS/FWS policy requires us to solicit independent expert 
review from at least three qualified specialists, concurrent with the 
public comment period (59 FR 34270; July 1, 1994). We solicited 
technical review of the June 2004 proposed listing determinations, 
including the proposed determination for the Oregon Coast coho ESU, 
from over 50 independent experts selected from the academic and 
scientific community, Native American tribal groups, Federal and state 
agencies, and the private sector.
    In December of 2004 the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
issued a Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (Peer 
Review Bulletin), establishing minimum peer review standards, a 
transparent process for public disclosure, and opportunities for public 
input. The OMB Peer Review Bulletin, implemented under the Information 
Quality Act (Public Law 106-554), is intended to ensure the quality of 
agency information, analyses, and regulatory activities and provide for 
a more transparent review process. We consider the scientific 
information used by the agency in determining to withdraw the proposed 
listing determination and critical habitat designation for Oregon Coast 
coho to be ``influential scientific information'' in the context of the 
OMB Peer Review Bulletin.
    We believe the independent expert review under the joint NMFS/FWS 
peer review policy, and the comments received from several academic 
societies and expert advisory panels, collectively satisfy the Peer 
Review Bulletin's requirements for ``adequate [prior] peer review'' 
(NMFS, 2005h). We solicited technical review of the proposed hatchery 
listing policy and salmon and steelhead listing determinations from 
over 50 independent experts selected from the academic and scientific 
community, Native American tribal groups, Federal and state agencies, 
and the private sector. The individuals from whom we solicited review 
of the proposals and the underlying science were selected because of 
their demonstrated expertise in a variety of disciplines including: 
artificial propagation; salmonid biology, taxonomy, and ecology; 
genetic and molecular techniques and analyses; population demography; 
quantitative methods of assessing extinction risk; fisheries 
management; local and regional habitat conditions and processes; and 
conducting scientific analyses in support of ESA listing 
determinations. The individuals solicited represent a broad spectrum of 
perspectives and expertise. The individuals solicited include those who 
have been critical of past agency actions in implementing the ESA for 
West Coast salmon and steelhead, as well as those who have been 
supportive of these actions. These individuals were not involved in 
producing the scientific information for our determinations and were 
not employed by the agency producing the documents. In addition to 
these solicited reviews, several independent scientific panels and 
academic societies provided technical review of the hatchery listing 
policy and proposed listing determinations, and the supporting 
documentation. Many of the members of these panels were individuals 
from whom we had solicited review. We thoroughly considered and, as 
appropriate, incorporated the review comments into these final listing 
determinations.
    In response to the requests for information and comments on the 
June 2004 proposed listing determinations, we received over 28,250 
comments by fax, standard mail, and e-mail. The majority of the 
comments received were from interested individuals who submitted form 
letters or form e-mails and addressed general issues not specific to 
the Oregon Coast coho ESU.

[[Page 3037]]

Comments were also submitted by state and tribal natural resource 
agencies, fishing groups, environmental organizations, home builder 
associations, academic and professional societies, expert advisory 
panels, farming groups, irrigation groups, and individuals with 
expertise in Pacific salmonids. The majority of respondents focused on 
the consideration of hatchery-origin fish in ESA listing 
determinations, with only a few comments specifically addressing the 
Oregon Coast Coho ESU. We also received comments from four of the 
independent experts from whom we had requested technical review of the 
scientific information underlying the June 2004 proposed listing 
determinations. Their comments did not specifically address the 
proposed determination for the Oregon Coast coho ESU. The reader is 
referred to the final hatchery listing policy (70 FR 37204; June 28, 
2005) and final listing determinations for 16 salmon ESUs (70 FR 37160; 
June 28, 2005) for a summary and discussion of general issues raised by 
the comments received.
    Below we address the comments received that directly pertain to the 
listing determination for the Oregon Coast coho ESU and Oregon's 
assessment. We received many substantive comments of a detailed and 
technical nature, particularly concerning Oregon's assessment report. 
Below we confine our summary of the comments received to those issues 
with the potential to influence the final listing determination. 
(Copies of the full text of comments received are available upon 
request, see ADDRESSES and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above.) The 
following summary of comments and our responses are organized into four 
general categories: (1) The consideration of hatchery origin fish in 
delineating the Oregon Coast coho ESU and evaluating its viability; (2) 
Oregon's modeling of the viability of the Oregon Coast coho ESU; (3) 
the consideration of threats facing, and efforts being made to protect, 
the species; and (4) the applicable standard(s) under the ESA for 
making a final listing determination of the Oregon Coast coho ESU.

Comments on the Consideration of Hatchery-Origin Fish

    Comment 1: The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) 
expressed concern regarding the proposed inclusion of the North Fork 
Nehalem River coho hatchery program in the Oregon Coast coho ESU. ODFW 
explained that the hatchery program propagates two different stocks: 
the North Fork Nehalem River hatchery coho stock (ODFW stock 
32), and the Fishhawk Lake hatchery coho stock (ODFW stock 
99). ODFW noted that both stocks, although founded using local 
natural-origin fish, are presently managed as isolated broodstocks. 
Although the level of divergence between these hatchery stocks and the 
local wild populations is not known, ODFW noted that our hatchery 
reviews (NMFS, 2003a, 2004b, 2004c) acknowledged that the level of 
divergence may be substantial. ODFW recommended that both the North 
Fork Nehalem River and Fishhawk Lake hatchery stocks should be excluded 
from the ESU.
    ODFW also noted that the recently founded Calapooya Creek (Umpqua 
River basin, Oregon) hatchery coho stock was not included in our 
hatchery reviews. The Calapooya Creek program was a small, short-term 
(in operation from 2001-2003), research hatchery program conducted to 
evaluate the use of hatchery-reared fish in the supplementation of a 
wild coho population. The program is no longer releasing fish, but will 
have returning adults through 2006. ODFW suggested that had we included 
this stock in our initial evaluations, the progeny expected to return 
through 2006 would have been considered as part of the Oregon Coast 
coho ESU.
    Response: We agree with ODFW's comments that the North Fork Nehalem 
River and Fishhawk Lake stocks propagated by the Nehalem hatchery coho 
program should be excluded from the ESU. Although both of these stocks 
were originally founded from the local natural populations, they have 
not since 1986 regularly incorporated natural fish into their 
broodstock. Additionally, the two hatchery stocks have not been managed 
in a way to assure that they remain separate and conserve their 
respective genetic resources. In 2 of every 3 years, the Nehalem 
hatchery program releases the North Fork Nehalem hatchery coho stock, 
and in the third year it releases the Fishhawk Lake stock. Since adult 
coho return at different ages, it is highly likely that mixing has 
occurred between the two stocks. Although the North Fork Nehalem and 
Fishhawk Lake hatchery stocks cluster genetically with other stocks 
that are part of the Oregon Coast coho ESU (Weitkamp et al., 1995), the 
stocks are managed in such a way that they are substantially 
reproductively isolated from the local natural populations, and it is 
likely that they have substantially diverged from the evolutionary 
legacy of the ESU.
    We did not include the Calapooya Creek coho hatchery stock in our 
hatchery reviews as the program is no longer collecting fish for 
broodstock or releasing smolts. However, we agree with ODFW that 
returns from Calapooya Creek hatchery stock, having been recently 
derived from local natural-origin fish, are likely no more than 
moderately diverged from the local natural populations and so will be 
considered part of the Oregon Coast coho ESU.
    Comment 2: A comment submitted by the Pacific Rivers Council (PRC) 
included a July 2003 report investigating the potential benefits of a 
modeled conservation hatchery program in supplementing Oregon Coast 
coho (Oosterhout and Huntington, 2003). PRC asserted that the report 
supports their position that hatchery fish should be considered as only 
a threat to wild salmonid populations, and that any potential short-
term benefits of artificial propagation are outweighed by the long-term 
damaging genetic and ecological effects on wild populations. The 
Oosterhout and Huntington (2003) report modeled an ``idealized 
conservation hatchery'' program and evaluated the success of 
supplementation efforts under different scenarios of habitat quality 
and marine survival. The authors conclude from their modeling study 
that supplementation, even under optimized model assumptions, poses 
long-term ecological and genetic risks, and any short-term gains in 
salmon abundance are temporary.
    Response: The use of artificial propagation represents a broad 
spectrum of hatchery practices and facilities, as well as a variety of 
ecological settings into which hatchery-origin fish are released. For 
this reason it is essential to assess hatchery programs on a case-by-
case basis. Our assessment of the benefits, risks, and uncertainties of 
artificial propagation concluded that the specific hatchery programs 
considered to be part of the Oregon Coast coho ESU collectively do not 
substantially reduce the extinction risk of the ESU in-total (NMFS, 
2004c). We noted that these hatchery programs likely contribute to an 
increased abundance of total natural spawners in the short term, 
although their contribution to the productivity of the supplemented 
populations is unknown. Our assessment is consistent with the findings 
of Oosterhout and Huntington (2003). The findings of scientific 
studies, such as the subject study on simulated conservation hatchery 
programs and their impacts on natural coho populations, inform our 
consideration of the benefits and risks to be expected from artificial 
propagation.

[[Page 3038]]

However, it would be inappropriate to rely on theoretical conclusions 
about the effectiveness of hatchery programs and not consider program-
specific information regarding broodstock origin, hatchery practices, 
and performance of hatchery- and natural-origin fish.

Comments on Oregon's Modeling of ESU Viability

    Comment 3: Douglas County Board of Commissioners (Oregon) submitted 
a report (Cramer et al., 2004) that concludes that NMFS' earlier 
viability analyses overstate the risks to Oregon Coast coho 
populations, and that the 2003 BRT's findings warrant reconsideration. 
The Cramer et al. (2004) report asserts that previous viability 
assessments failed to adequately consider connectivity among spawner 
aggregations, underestimated juvenile over-winter survival in smaller 
stream reaches, and underestimated coho population stability. The 
report asserts that sharp reductions in ocean harvest rates since 1994, 
declining influence of hatchery-origin fish, and improved monitoring 
and evaluation under the Oregon Plan confer a very low risk of 
extinction even if future marine survival rates are low and remain low.
    Response: The Cramer et al. (2004) report does not present any 
substantial new information, other than including an additional year of 
abundance data that was not available to the BRT. The report emphasizes 
selective aspects of the available data including: reduction of threats 
by changes in fishery and harvest management; and improved biological 
status evidenced by increasing spawning escapements and successful 
juvenile rearing throughout the ESU. These observations and analyses 
were fully considered in the BRT's review (Good et al., 2005; NMFS, 
2003b), and Oregon's assessment. The Cramer et al. (2004) report does 
not, by itself, add to our consideration of the BRT's or Oregon's 
findings.
    Comment 4: Several commenters expressed concern that the conclusion 
of Oregon's assessment does not represent a balanced consideration of 
the available information and associated uncertainties. The commenters 
felt that the conclusion focused largely on the supporting evidence, 
and did not adequately address uncertainties and underlying 
assumptions.
    Response: In our March 18, 2005, letter to Oregon detailing our 
comments on its draft assessment (NMFS, 2005b) we recommended 
clarifying a number of explicit and implicit assumptions made in 
Oregon's analyses. We, as well as several other reviewers, suggested 
specific areas where additional information could be evaluated or 
alternative analyses explored to more transparently test the validity 
of Oregon's assumptions and to evaluate the sensitivity of the 
viability model results. Oregon made considerable improvements to the 
final assessment by including new information and analyses, and 
acknowledging many of the underlying assumptions and associated 
uncertainties. It is to be expected that an analysis of the scope of 
Oregon's assessment cannot address all uncertainties, fully explore the 
validity of all the assumptions made, or explore all alternative model 
formulations. The challenge for such a comprehensive assessment is for 
the authors to clearly state the assumptions being made, to consider 
the implications of such assumptions, and to disclose any associated 
uncertainties that may substantively affect the model results. We 
believe Oregon's viability assessment transparently addresses these 
issues such that the technical reader can adequately appraise the 
reliability of, and uncertainties associated with, the report's 
findings. Oregon's IMST, in its comments on the draft assessment 
report, concluded that the assumptions and analyses underpinning the 
State's coho assessment are valid. Our review noted that there are 
conclusory statements in Oregon's draft assessment that overstate the 
confidence with which the viability of the Oregon Coast coho ESU can be 
assessed. However, the ``Additional Considerations'' section of 
Oregon's final viability assessment discusses the uncertainties and 
risks associated with the analyses conducted and provides essential 
context to the report's conclusions.
    Comment 5: Several commenters expressed doubt with respect to the 
coho population structure posited in Oregon's viability analyses. The 
commenters noted that uncertainties regarding the ESU's population 
structure contribute to biases in the assessment of population-level 
and ESU-level extinction risks. These commenters advised that Oregon's 
assessment should include a discussion of how the report's conclusions 
might be affected if the presumed population structure proved to be 
incorrect. One commenter asserted that preliminary results from recent 
microsatellite DNA genetic analyses indicate that there is substantive 
population structure for the Oregon Coast coho ESU on a smaller spatial 
scale than is reflected by Oregon's delineation of independent and 
dependent populations. The commenter felt that the preliminary genetic 
data called into question Oregon's assumptions regarding the magnitude 
and frequency of migration among populations, thereby affecting 
projections of population persistence and ESU viability.
    Response: We conclude that the population structure used in 
Oregon's assessment represents a reasonable synthesis of the best 
available scientific information. It is consistent with, and largely 
derived from, the preliminary historical populations identified by 
NOAA's Technical Recovery Team (TRT) for the Northern California and 
Oregon Coasts (Lawson et al., 2004) (although it is unclear whether the 
population structure used in Oregon's viability analysis is intended to 
represent the historical or current population structure). The TRT 
evaluated the spatial relationships of 67 historical populations of 
Oregon Coast coho, principally on the basis of the geographical and 
ecological characteristics of the Oregon coastal landscape. The TRT 
preliminarily identified nine historical populations as functionally 
independent, nine as potentially independent, and 48 populations as 
dependent populations. These 67 populations are grouped into geographic 
strata that (1) serve as a means of defining important geographic, 
genetic, and ecological diversity within the ESU, and (2) distinguish 
independent populations that will be the focus of rigorous viability 
analyses, monitoring, and restoration efforts. The TRT did not attempt 
to define current populations or to predict what future populations 
might look like. The likely historical structure of populations 
provides a framework for comparing the historical and present status of 
populations, identifying the changes that have affected them, and 
prioritizing restoration actions. The TRT notes that the preliminarily 
defined historical population structure may change in the future as 
viability analyses progress and as new information becomes available.
    It is expected that new genetic information (particularly from 
studies using newer genetic techniques with improved resolution over 
previous studies) will suggest population spatial structure that is 
different from that identified by Oregon and the TRT. The genetic 
structure within an ESU is dynamic, and is influenced by temporal 
variability in gene flow, genetic drift, and adaptation among 
populations. These processes will be particularly pronounced for 
smaller dependent populations on short temporal scales, resulting in 
genetic population structure on finer spatial scales than that 
identified for larger independent

[[Page 3039]]

populations over evolutionary time scales. We assume that the 
historical template was sustainable, while noting the uncertainty in 
this assumption, given that present habitats and environmental 
conditions have been substantially altered.
    Comment 6: Several commenters agreed strongly with Oregon's 
assessment, and supported the conclusion that the Oregon Coast coho ESU 
is viable. The commenters noted that Oregon's assessment represents the 
first effort to synthesize the large quantity of biological and habitat 
information available for the ESU. The commenters cited recent years of 
strong returns, reduced harvest rates, improved hatchery management, 
and an ongoing commitment to conservation measures under the Oregon 
Plan, as evidence that the ESU is currently viable and measures are in 
place to ensure it remains so for the foreseeable future.
    Response: Oregon's assessment represents an impressive aggregation, 
analysis and synthesis of population, hatchery, harvest, and habitat 
data from many state and Federal agencies, and at multiple spatial and 
temporal scales. We agree with the commenters that Oregon's assessment 
represents an unprecedented effort for any West Coast ESU of salmon or 
steelhead, and that it is sufficiently robust that it causes us to 
reconsider our proposed determination that the ESU is likely to become 
endangered in the foreseeable future. The findings of Oregon's 
assessment need to be considered in the context of all the available 
information, particularly in the context of other viability analyses 
and the many technical reviews of Oregon's analyses. NMFS' BRT included 
in its analysis of ESU viability the recent improvements in the ESU's 
abundance and productivity, improvements in hatchery practices, and 
sharp reductions in harvest rates. As summarized above, the BRT's 
findings reflect its considerable uncertainty regarding the threats 
facing the ESU, particularly in predicting future ocean conditions and 
determining whether current freshwater habitat conditions are of 
sufficient quantity and quality to sustain viable populations in the 
foreseeable future. Oregon's assessment, as well as other information 
received during the public comment periods, further inform our 
evaluation of the ESU's status, threats, and related uncertainties.
    Comment 7: Several commenters criticized the assertion made in 
Oregon's viability analysis that Oregon Coast coho populations are 
inherently resilient at low levels of abundance due to strong 
productivity compensation at low spawner density (the ``low abundance 
paradigm''). Commenters noted that: (1) There is little empirical 
evidence in the scientific literature to support this claim; (2) 
Oregon's low abundance paradigm has not been thoroughly peer reviewed 
or tested with other coho data sets; and (3) any conclusions that rest 
heavily on a new and unverified paradigm are tenuous at best. 
Commenters observed that the failure of the 1997-1999 brood years to 
replace themselves on the spawning grounds, despite relatively low 
abundance levels, appears to contradict Oregon's low abundance 
paradigm. The commenters argued that Oregon's analyses of data that 
arguably demonstrate their low abundance paradigm are uncompelling and 
statistically invalid. Commenters felt that the apparent resilience 
indicated by the recent increased abundance of Oregon Coast coho is 
attributable to favorable ocean conditions and substantially reduced 
harvest rates, rather than a strong compensatory demographic response. 
The commenters argued that had the favorable ocean conditions and 
reduced harvest been absent, it is unlikely that the quick increase in 
coho abundance would have occurred.
    Response: We shared many of these concerns with Oregon as part of 
our comments on its draft assessment report (NMFS, 2005a, 2005b). The 
data presented by Oregon in support of the low abundance paradigm 
suffer from low sample size, potentially substantial measurement error, 
and the fact that Oregon did not adequately analyze whether increased 
productivity is attributable to a strong compensatory response or is 
better explained by interannual variability. Although there are data 
points for a few populations within a given brood year that suggest 
high productivity at low spawner abundances, there are contrary 
examples for the same population in different years, or for different 
populations in the same brood year. Occasional large spikes in 
productivity are expected when evaluating such recruitment data sets. 
We believe that single data points are not very informative with regard 
to assessing extinction risk. The more relevant consideration is 
whether mean productivity is at or above replacement over the long term 
through periods of favorable and unfavorable environmental conditions. 
Oregon candidly acknowledges these issues in the report's technical 
sections, although overly broad statements in the reports' executive 
summary and synthesis sections may be misleading.
    Oregon responded to our comments by including an alternate 
recruitment model to test the sensitivity of the model results to the 
low abundance paradigm (i.e., the assumption that the number of 
recruits per spawner will increase with decreasing numbers of 
spawners). Oregon concluded that the removal of this assumption of 
strong productivity compensation at low spawner densities from the 
recruitment model did not substantially alter its overall status 
determination for the ESU. Oregon's additional sensitivity analysis 
lends support to a conclusion that the ESU is currently viable, even if 
the low abundance paradigm is insufficiently supported (NMFS, 2005d). 
However, the small samples sizes and the effects of measurement error 
continue to contribute to uncertainty in its assessment..
    Comment 8: Several commenters were critical of Oregon's assumptions 
that the current habitat conditions are adequate to support viability. 
When environmental conditions are unfavorable and population abundances 
are low, the populations tend to occupy a small range of core habitats. 
When environmental conditions improve, the populations expand into 
additional habitat. Oregon's assessment of ESU viability assumes that 
both the core and expansion habitats are of sufficient quantity and 
quality to support the populations through poor ocean conditions and to 
take advantage of favorable ocean conditions. These and other 
commenters were concerned that the recent few years of improved coho 
returns during strongly favorable ocean conditions do not provide 
adequate support for the assumption that current habitat conditions are 
sufficient to sustain these recent increases.
    Response: Oregon acknowledges that current habitat conditions are 
generally poor, and that relative scarcity of high quality overwinter 
coho rearing habitat is of concern. Oregon's assessment notes that coho 
streams within the range of the ESU currently are characterized by a 
general scarcity of instream large woody debris, a lack of large 
conifers in riparian areas, reduced connectivity with off-channel 
habitats and flood plains, and the presence of fine sediments in 
spawning gravels (Oregon, 2005-3B). However, Oregon reasons that the 
ESU's demonstrated ability to rebound rapidly from the unfavorable 
environmental conditions of the 1990s strongly indicates that currently 
available freshwater habitats are of sufficient quantity and quality to 
support increased population

[[Page 3040]]

productivity, increased population abundance, and increased spatial 
distribution of populations, and sustain populations through any future 
downturns in ocean conditions.
    In contrast, the slight majority opinion of the 2003 BRT was that 
the ESU is likely to become endangered, based largely on concerns 
regarding ability of current habitat conditions to sustain populations 
during future periods of poor ocean productivity. The BRT noted that 
habitat quality was generally poor, and habitat capacity was 
significantly reduced from historical levels. Given the competing 
reasonable inferences regarding ESU status from limited data we cannot 
conclude that the ESU is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable 
because of the ``destruction, modification, or curtailment of its 
habitat or range.'' This issue is discussed in more detail in the 
Consideration of ESA section 4(a)(1) Factors section below.
    Comment 9: Several commenters were critical of Oregon's 
consideration of ocean conditions. In Oregon's draft assessment report, 
Oregon assumed that future unfavorable ocean conditions would be no 
more severe than those observed in the past. Commenters noted the 
extreme uncertainty associated with predicting ocean conditions, 
projected that future ocean conditions may be worse in intensity and 
longer in duration than that observed in the 1990s, and recommended 
that Oregon include more severe scenarios of unfavorable ocean 
conditions in its model simulations.
    Response: The commenters are correct that Oregon's assessment 
assumed that past ocean conditions serve as a reasonable approximation 
of future ocean conditions. This assumption was clearly stated in 
Oregon's assessment report, and represents a reasonable formulation of 
its model to address the question of whether Oregon Coast coho 
populations are likely to become an endangered species in the 
foreseeable future, given current and past variability in marine 
survival rates. As the commenters note, predictions of future ocean 
conditions are highly uncertain given uncertainties in decadal cycles 
in ocean-climate conditions and global climate change. Thus any 
projections of the viability of coho population in the foreseeable 
future are similarly associated with uncertainty. In our comments on 
Oregon's draft assessment report, we encouraged Oregon to include model 
scenarios that contemplate downturns in ocean conditions of greater 
severity and longer duration than was observed in the 1990s (NMFS, 
2005b) to better inform considerations of whether Oregon Coast coho 
populations are likely to be threatened with extinction in the 
foreseeable future. Oregon included a sensitivity analysis in its final 
assessment report with scenarios in which marine survival conditions 
observed in the 1990s persisted for different lengths of time into the 
future. The result was that the ESU remained viable even under those 
conditions where very low marine survival persisted for 24 years. This 
additional analysis was very informative, providing some of the best 
support for Oregon's argument that the ESU is viable (NMFS, 2005d).
    Comment 10: Several commenters expressed concern that Oregon's 
assessment does not contemplate the potential cumulative impact of 
coincident detrimental habitat trends and catastrophic events. 
Commenters felt that Oregon's assessment was dismissive of the 
likelihood that such scenarios might occur in the future.
    Response: Oregon noted in the final assessment that there is the 
real possibility that a number of adverse environmental conditions 
could converge and create a catastrophic threat to the ESU's viability. 
Oregon argued that such a worst-case scenario occurred in the 1990s, 
when drought, extreme floods, and the worst marine survival conditions 
observed in five decades converged. Although the impacts were dramatic, 
the ESU persisted through this period and rebounded quickly once 
conditions moderated. Oregon concluded that the life cycle of coho 
salmon, its population structure and dynamics, and its broad geographic 
distribution all provide protection and reduce the likelihood that 
catastrophic events or the convergence of multiple adverse 
environmental conditions would result in the Oregon Coast coho ESU not 
being viable in the foreseeable future.
    Comment 11: Several commenters were critical of the abundance and 
productivity criteria applied in Oregon's viability assessment. 
Commenters were critical of the low abundance threshold chosen and of 
Oregon's premise that the probability of extinction is largely 
independent of abundance. Commenters noted that the strong correlation 
between low abundance and elevated risk of extinction is well 
established in the conservation biology literature. Commenters cited 
studies that discuss the ``extinction vortex'' phenomenon in which 
populations may appear to persist at severely reduced levels of 
abundance, but lack the demographic capacity and the genetic and 
ecological diversity to recover. Such populations lack the ability to 
respond to environmental variability and catastrophic events and slide 
irrevocably toward extinction. The commenters expressed the concern 
that coho populations subjected to severe boom and bust cycles of 
abundance will suffer an erosion of genetic and life-history diversity 
during ``bottlenecks'' of low population abundance, and that over 
multiple cycles will become reproductively less fit. The consequence, 
the commenters felt, would be a gradually diminished ability to fully 
re-occupy available habitat during favorable environmental conditions, 
and an ever accumulating risk of population extirpation and ESU 
extinction. One commenter also stressed that Oregon's minimum 
population size threshold would provide insufficient nutrient 
enrichment of streams from salmon carcasses to support essential 
ecological functions.
    Another commenter disagreed with the productivity threshold for the 
average recruits per spawner during periods of low population 
abundance. The commenter noted that the productivity threshold 
(expressed as average recruits per spawner) allows for a 50 percent 
probability that the population is actually declining when at low 
abundance. The commenter recommended that a higher level of certainty 
was advisable for the productivity threshold, given that the resilient 
productivity at low abundance is a key component of Oregon's assessment 
(i.e., Oregon's low abundance paradigm).
    Response: Oregon's low abundance paradigm effectively emphasizes 
population productivity and de-emphasizes the abundance parameter in 
determining probabilities of population persistence. As noted above in 
the response to Comment 7, we have concerns regarding the validity of 
Oregon's low abundance paradigm. We agree with the commenters that 
there is strong support in the scientific literature for abundance 
being an important determinant of extinction risk (see McElhany et al., 
2000). However, we acknowledge that there is insufficient empirical 
data demonstrating the specific abundance level at which stochastic and 
depensatory demographic processes dominate and the risk of extinction 
is expected to increase dramatically. Given this uncertainty, we cannot 
say that Oregon's abundance threshold is unreasonable.
    We agree with the commenter that the productivity thresholds should 
require a higher level of certainty that the average recruits per 
spawner at low population

[[Page 3041]]

abundance exceeds replacement. A population exactly meeting Oregon's 
viability thresholds would be at a very low level of abundance, 
susceptible to stochastic and depensatory demographic processes, and 
would have a 50 percent chance that its productivity is below 
replacement. Additionally, the productivity threshold does not take 
into account the statistical uncertainty in estimating the number of 
recruits per spawner, so the confidence with which one can conclude 
that a given population is above the productivity threshold is 
unspecified.
    Comment 12: Several commenters felt that Oregon's consideration of 
the effects of artificial propagation was insufficient. Commenters felt 
that Oregon's viability analysis considered only ecological and 
predation effects of supplementation with hatchery fish, and failed to 
consider the negative impacts of interbreeding hatchery-origin and 
natural fish on genetic diversity and reproductive fitness.
    Response: The potential ecological and genetic interactions between 
naturally spawning hatchery-origin and natural populations are complex, 
uncertain, and influenced by site-specific and program-specific 
factors. Accordingly, modeling these interactions is exceedingly 
difficult. In addition to the potential negative ecological and 
predation effects of hatchery supplementation, Oregon's assessment also 
acknowledges the potential negative impacts on the reproductive success 
and genetic diversity of natural populations. Because of the 
uncertainty surrounding these issues, Oregon concluded that it was not 
feasible to reliably parameterize hatchery interactions across the ESU, 
based on simple assumptions regarding relative reproductive success of 
naturally spawning hatchery fish and their ecological and genetic 
interactions. Oregon concluded that the best index of hatchery impacts 
is the resulting performance of naturally spawned fish. Accordingly, 
Oregon's assessment was based upon counts of only naturally produced 
recruits. If hatchery fish were responsible for an adverse impact on 
the overall natural population, this effect would be evident in the 
estimated productivity of the population. We believe Oregon's approach 
is clearly articulated and represents a reasonable approach to 
considering the effects of artificial propagation in its analyses.

Comments on Threats Facing the Species and Efforts Being Made to 
Protect them

    Comment 13: Several commenters felt that effective regulatory 
controls and monitoring programs are in place to ensure that harvest 
and hatchery practices no longer threaten the ESU.
    Response: Many noteworthy and important regulatory changes have 
been made that adequately address historically harmful practices. 
Changes in ocean and freshwater fisheries management have resulted in 
sharp reductions in fishery mortality in Oregon Coast coho populations, 
and likely have contributed to recent population increases. It is 
unlikely that those harvest controls will change in the future, given 
that the Pacific Fishery Management Council and, ultimately the 
Department of Commerce, have influence over harvest. Reforms in 
hatchery management practices have limited the potential for adverse 
ecological interactions between hatchery-origin and natural fish, and 
have markedly reduced risks to the genetic diversity and reproductive 
fitness for the majority of naturally spawned populations in the ESU. 
It is unlikely those reforms will be reversed in the future.
    Comment 14: Several commenters felt that Oregon's assessment did 
not adequately assess the future trends of coho habitat, particularly 
riparian areas. Commenters expressed concern regarding Oregon's premise 
that habitat conditions will not degrade in the foreseeable future. One 
commenter was critical of the Oregon Forest Practices Act, and argued 
that it is inadequate to prevent the future degradation of riparian 
habitats, particularly on private non-industrial forestlands. The 
commenter noted that the Forest Practices Act applies only to the 
commercial harvest of trees, and that non-commercial land owners may 
cut riparian trees without restriction if they do not sell the wood. 
The commenter noted that this unregulated practice is particularly 
evident in areas with increased rural residential development along 
streambanks.
    Other commenters doubted whether regulations, restoration programs, 
and other protective efforts would improve habitat conditions in the 
foreseeable future. One commenter noted that there is an insufficient 
data record to evaluate the success of protective efforts aimed at 
restoring riparian habitats, particularly in increasing the recruitment 
of large woody debris. Several other commenters doubted whether forest 
management under the Oregon Plan has resulted, or will result, in an 
increased amount of large-diameter trees (important for the recruitment 
of large woody debris in coho rearing areas). The commenters argued 
that the shorter rotations being implemented on private industrial 
forest lands reduce the size of trees delivered to streams in 
landslides, and thus may result in diminished stream complexity in 
important coho rearing habitats.
    Response: A review of Oregon's final assessment and other available 
information suggests that habitat conditions overall are likely to 
remain constant in the foreseeable future, given that there are likely 
to be improvements in some aspects of habitat condition, declines in 
others, and a continuation of current conditions in still others (NMFS, 
2005e). For example, the Northwest Forest Plan instituted riparian 
habitat buffers and other measures on Federal lands that improved many 
of the historical forestry practices that led to the loss and 
degradation of riparian habitats. Development and implementation of 
Total Maximum Daily Loads are likely to result in slightly improved 
water quality. Restoration efforts have treated approximately seven 
percent of the stream miles within the range of the ESU over the last 7 
years with the intent of restoring stream complexity and riparian 
habitats, and improving water quality (Oregon, 2005-1) (though it is 
unclear how much restoration is likely to occur in the future, given 
the uncertainties regarding funding).
    Forest practices on state and private land include some 
improvements over historically harmful practices, such as the 
establishment of riparian management areas under revisions in the 1990s 
to Oregon forest practice rules (Oregon, 2005-1). However, there are 
also offsetting practices that are expected to degrade habitat 
conditions and complexity, such as shorter harvest rotations, and road 
construction and logging on unstable slopes and along debris flow paths 
(NMFS, 2005e). On balance, habitat conditions on these lands are not 
likely to show significant improvement or decline.
    For agricultural lands, riparian management is governed by 
agricultural water quality management plans under Oregon Senate Bill 
1010, as well as by subsequently developed riparian rules which 
synthesize elements of individual Senate Bill 1010 plans for a given 
basin. These agricultural plans and rules do not specify the vegetation 
composition or size of the riparian areas to be established. The lack 
of specificity of these agricultural plans makes the enforcement and 
effectiveness of these plans uncertain (NMFS, 2005e). Oregon's final 
assessment concludes that ``we are likely to see slow improv