Listing Endangered and Threatened Species: Completion of a Review of the Status of the Oregon Coast Evolutionarily Significant Unit of Coho Salmon; Proposal to Promulgate Rule Classifying Species as Threatened, 29489-29506 [2010-12635]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 101 (Wednesday, May 26, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29489-29506]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-12635]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 223

[Docket No. 090324348-9655-01]
RIN 0648-XO28


Listing Endangered and Threatened Species: Completion of a Review 
of the Status of the Oregon Coast Evolutionarily Significant Unit of 
Coho Salmon; Proposal to Promulgate Rule Classifying Species as 
Threatened

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

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), propose to 
affirm the Endangered Species Act (ESA) status for the Oregon Coast 
(OC) Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus 
kisutch) by promulgating a rule that will supersede our February 11, 
2008, listing determination for this ESU. This proposal will also serve 
as our announcement of the outcome of a new review of the status of 
this ESU and request for public comment on the proposal to promulgate 
the OC coho salmon ESU listing determination. On February 11, 2008, we 
listed the OC coho salmon ESU as threatened, designated critical 
habitat, and issued final protective regulations under section the 
Endangered Species Act (ESA) (February 11, 2008). The ESA listing 
status of the OC coho salmon ESU has been controversial and has 
attracted litigation in the past. This listing determination is the 
result of a settlement agreement. This new listing determination will 
supersede our February 11, 2008, listing determination for this ESU. 
Our February 11, 2008, determination establishing protective 
regulations under the ESA and designating critical habitat for this ESU 
will remain in effect.

DATES:  Information and comments on this proposal must be received by 
July 26, 2010. A public hearing will be held promptly if any person so 
requests by July 12, 2010. Notice of the location and time of any such 
hearing will be published in the Federal Register not less than 15 days 
before the hearing is held.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by 0648-XO28 by any of 
the following methods:
     Electronic Submissions: Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: 
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting 
comments.
     Mail: Submit written comments to Chief, Protected 
Resources Division, Northwest Region, National Marine Fisheries 
Service, 1201 NE Lloyd Blvd., Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97232.
    Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record 
and will generally be posted to https://www.regulations.gov without 
change. All Personal Identifying Information (for example, name, 
address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly 
accessible. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or 
otherwise sensitive or protected information. We will accept anonymous 
comments (enter ``N/A'' in the required fields if you wish to remain 
anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in 
Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only. 
Information about the OC coho salmon ESU can be obtained via the 
Internet at: https://www.nwr.noaa.gov/ or by submitting a request to the 
Assistant Regional Administrator, Protected Resources Division, 
Northwest Region, NMFS, 1201 NE Lloyd Blvd., Suite 1100, Portland, OR 
97232.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information regarding this 
proposal, contact Eric Murray, NMFS, Northwest Region, (503) 231-2378; 
or Marta Nammack, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, (301) 713-1401.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Previous Federal ESA Actions Related to Oregon Coast Coho Salmon

    We first proposed to list the OC coho salmon ESU as threatened 
under the ESA in 1995 (60 FR 38011; July 25, 1995). Since then, we have 
completed several status reviews for this species, and its listing 
classification has changed between threatened and not warranted for 
listing a number of times. A complete history of this ESU's listing 
status can be found in our February 11, 2008, final rule (73 FR 7816), 
classifying this ESU as a threatened species.
    To summarize that history, on July 25, 1995 we first proposed to 
list the ESU as threatened (60 FR 38011). We withdrew that proposal in 
response to the State of Oregon's proposed conservation measures as 
described in the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds (62 FR 24588; 
May 6, 1997). On June 1, 1998, the U.S. District Court for the District 
of Oregon found that our determination to not list the OC coho salmon 
ESU was arbitrary and capricious (Oregon Natural Resources Council v. 
Daley, 6 F. Supp. 2d 1139 (D. Or. 1998)). The Court ruled that our 
decision gave too much weight to conservation measures with an 
uncertain likelihood of implementation. On August 10, 1998, we issued a 
final rule listing the OC coho ESU as threatened (63 FR 42587). In 
2001, the U.S. District Court in Eugene, Oregon, set aside the 1998 
threatened listing of the OC coho salmon ESU (Alsea Valley Alliance v. 
Evans, 161 F. Supp. 2d 1154, (D. Or. 2001)). The Court ruled that our 
failure to include certain hatchery fish as part of the ESU was not 
consistent with the ESA. Subsequently, we announced that we would 
conduct an updated status review of 27 West Coast salmonid ESUs, 
including the OC coho salmon ESU (67 FR 6215, February 11, 2002; 67 FR 
48601, July 25, 2002).
    To aid us in these reviews, we convened a team of Federal 
scientists, known as a biological review team (BRT). For the OC coho 
salmon ESU, NMFS concluded that this ESU was not in danger of 
extinction, but was likely to become endangered in the foreseeable 
future. The BRT noted considerable scientific uncertainty regarding the 
future viability of this ESU given unknowns about ocean conditions for 
coho salmon survival (Good et al., 2005). They also stated that there 
is uncertainty about whether current freshwater habitats are of 
sufficient quality and quantity to support the then recent high 
abundance levels and sustain populations during future downturns in 
ocean conditions. Considering the BRT's scientific findings and our 
assessment of risks and benefits from artificial propagation programs 
included in the ESU, efforts being made to protect the species, and the 
five factors listed under section 4(a)(1) of the ESA, we proposed to 
list this ESU as threatened (69 FR 33102; June 14, 2004). In the June 
2004 proposed rule, we noted that Oregon was initiating a comprehensive 
assessment of the viability of the OC coho salmon ESU and of the 
adequacy

[[Page 29490]]

of actions under the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds for 
conserving OC coho salmon.
    In January 2005, the State of Oregon released a draft OC coho 
salmon ESU assessment. This assessment concluded that the OC coho 
salmon ESU was viable and that measures under the Oregon Plan had 
stopped, if not reversed, the deterioration of OC coho salmon habitats. 
We published a notice of availability of Oregon's Draft Viability 
Assessment for public review and comment in the Federal Register (70 FR 
6840; February 9, 2005) and noted that information presented in the 
draft and final assessments would be considered in making the final 
listing determination for the OC coho salmon ESU. We forwarded the 
public comments we received on Oregon's Draft Viability Assessment, as 
well as our technical reviews, for Oregon's consideration in developing 
its final assessment. On May 13, 2005, Oregon issued its final Oregon 
Coastal Coho Assessment. The final assessment included several changes 
intended to address concerns raised regarding the sufficiency and 
accuracy of the draft assessment. The final assessment concluded that: 
(1) The OC coho salmon ESU was 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 was necessarily sufficient to support a viable ESU; and (3) 
the integration of laws, adaptive management programs, and monitoring 
efforts under the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds would 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 OC coho ESU, finding that there 
was substantial disagreement regarding the sufficiency or accuracy of 
the available data relevant to the listing determination. We solicited 
additional public comment and information. On January 19, 2006, we 
issued a final determination that listing the OC coho salmon ESU under 
the ESA was not warranted (71 FR 3033). As part of this determination, 
we withdrew the proposed ESA section 4(d) regulations and critical 
habitat designation for the ESU. In reaching our determination not to 
list the OC coho salmon ESU, we found that the BRT's slight majority 
opinion that the ESU is ``likely to become endangered`` and the 
conclusion of the Oregon Final Viability Assessment that the ESU was 
viable represented competing reasonable inferences from the available 
scientific information and considerable associated uncertainty. The 
difference of opinion centered on whether the ESU was at risk because 
of the ``threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its 
habitat or range.'' We conducted an analysis of current habitat status 
and likely future habitat trends (NMFS, 2005a) and found that: (1) The 
sufficiency of current habitat conditions was unknown; and (2) likely 
future habitat trends were mixed (i.e., some habitat elements were 
likely to improve, some were likely to decline, others were likely to 
remain in their current condition). We concluded that there was 
insufficient evidence to support the conclusion that the ESU was more 
likely than not to become an endangered species in the foreseeable 
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
    Our decision not to list the OC coho salmon ESU was challenged by 
Trout Unlimited. On October 9, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the 
District of Oregon invalidated our January 2006 decision not to list 
the OC coho salmon ESU (Trout Unlimited v. Lohn, Civ. No. 06--01493ST 
(D. Or., Oct. 9, 2007). The Court found that Oregon's viability 
assessment did not represent the best available science as required by 
the ESA, and that we improperly considered it in reaching our final 
listing decision.
    In response to the Court's order and pursuant to deadlines 
established by the Court, we issued a final rule to list the OC coho 
salmon ESU as threatened, designate critical habitat, and establish 
protective regulations under section 4(d) of the ESA on February 11, 
2008 (73 FR 7816). This decision was challenged by Douglas County, 
Oregon and others in Douglas County v. Balsiger (Civ. No. 08-01547; D. 
Or. 2008). We reached a settlement with the litigants, by which we 
would again review the status of the OC coho salmon ESU. This proposal 
announces the results of that review.

ESA Statutory Provisions

    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 an endangered 
species in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant 
portion of its range (16 U.S.C. section 1532(6),(20)). Section 4(a)(1) 
of the ESA and NMFS' implementing regulations (50 CFR part 424) state 
that we must determine whether a species is endangered or threatened 
because of 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 
man-made factors affecting its continued existence. We are to make this 
determination based solely on the best available scientific and 
commercial 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.
    We are responsible for determining whether species, subspecies, or 
distinct population segments (DPSs) of Pacific salmon should be listed 
as threatened or endangered under the ESA. To identify the proper 
taxonomic unit for consideration in a salmon listing determination, we 
apply our Policy on Applying the Definition of Species under the ESA to 
Pacific Salmon (ESU Policy) (56 FR 58612; November 20, 1991). Under 
this policy, populations of salmon substantially reproductively 
isolated from other conspecific populations and representing an 
important component in the evolutionary legacy of the biological 
species are considered to be an ESU. In our listing determinations for 
Pacific salmon under the ESA, we have treated an ESU as constituting a 
DPS, and hence a ``species,'' under the ESA.
    When 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, we apply the NMFS--U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service Policy on Evaluating Conservation Efforts (``PECE''; 68 FR 
15100; March 28, 2003). In past ESA listing determinations for the OC 
coho salmon ESU, we have applied the PECE policy when evaluating new 
conservation efforts. Most of these conservation efforts have been 
implemented for several years so it is now possible for us to consider 
the available information about their actual implementation and 
effectiveness. Where information on program effectiveness is not 
available, we will not attribute a conservation benefit to the OC coho 
salmon ESU as resulting from the program.

[[Page 29491]]

Species Life History

    Coho salmon are a wide-ranging species of Pacific salmon, spawning 
and rearing in rivers and streams around the Pacific Rim from Monterey 
Bay in California north to Point Hope, Alaska; through the Aleutian 
Islands; and from the Anadyr River in Russia south to Korea and 
northern Hokkaido, Japan (Laufle et al., 1986). From central British 
Columbia south, the vast majority of coho salmon adults return to spawn 
as 3-year-olds, having spent approximately 18 months in freshwater and 
18 months in salt water (Gilbert, 1912; Pritchard ,1940; Sandercock, 
1991). The primary exceptions to this pattern are ``jacks,'' sexually 
mature males that return to freshwater to spawn after only 5 to 7 
months in the ocean. West Coast coho salmon juveniles typically leave 
freshwater in the spring (April to June) and re-enter freshwater from 
September to November when sexually mature. They spawn from November to 
December and occasionally into January (Sandercock, 1991). Coho salmon 
spawning habitat consists of small streams with stable gravels. Summer 
and winter freshwater habitats most preferred by young coho salmon 
consist of quiet areas with low flow, such as backwater pools, beaver 
ponds, and side channels (Reeves et al., 1989). Since coho salmon spend 
up to half of their lives in freshwater, the condition of that habitat 
can have a substantial influence on their survival. In particular, low 
gradient stream reaches on lower elevation land are important for 
winter survival of juvenile coho salmon (Stout et al., 2010).
    The OC coho salmon ESU covers much of the Oregon coast, from Cape 
Blanco to the mouth of the Columbia River, an area with considerable 
physical diversity ranging from extensive sand dunes to rocky outcrops. 
With the exception of the Umpqua River, which extends through the Coast 
Range to drain the Cascade Mountains, rivers in this ESU have their 
headwaters in the Coast Range. Genetic data indicate that OC coho 
salmon north of Cape Blanco form a discrete group, although there is 
evidence of differentiation within this area. However, because there is 
no clear geographic pattern to the differentiation, NMFS has considered 
coho salmon occupying this area to be a single ESU with relatively high 
heterogeneity (Weitkamp et al., 1995).
    Unlike some West Coast salmon ESUs, OC coho salmon have shown wide 
fluctuations in abundance and productivity during the last 50 years. 
Total spawning escapement of naturally produced OC coho held steady 
through the 1960s at between approximately 45,000 to 150,000 fish 
(Stout et al., 2010). Spawning abundance declined gradually through the 
1970s and 1980s, with all time lows observed in the early 1990s. 
Preharvest abundance has fluctuated over time, but the overall trend 
from 1970 through 1999 was strongly negative. Both preharvest and 
spawning abundance increased from 2000 to 2003, with 50-year highs in 
spawning abundance observed in 2002 and 2003. Those years also 
represented the highest preharvest abundance since 1976. With the 
exception of 2007, spawning abundance from 2001 through 2008 has been 
higher than any level since 1969, though preharvest abundance has been 
variable.

Previous Reviews and Biological Review Team Reports

    Above we described the ESA listing history of OC coho salmon 
(Previous Federal ESA Actions Related to Oregon Coast Coho Salmon). For 
each of the status reviews, consistent with our general practice for 
other salmonid species, we convened a biological review team (BRT) 
composed of Federal scientists with expertise in salmon biology, 
genetics, fishery stock evaluation, marine ecology, or freshwater 
habitat assessment. The first BRT was convened in 1995 and produced a 
report detailing its findings (Weitkamp et al., 1995). During the first 
status review, the BRT found that spawning escapements for the OC coho 
salmon ESU had declined substantially during the 20th century and 
natural production was at 5 percent to 10 percent of production in the 
early 1900s. They noted that productivity and abundance showed clear 
long-term downward trends. Average spawner abundance had been 
relatively constant since the late 1970s, but preharvest abundance was 
declining. Average recruits per spawner were also declining and average 
spawner-to-spawner ratios were below replacement levels in the worst 
years. OC coho salmon populations in most major rivers were found to be 
heavily influenced by hatchery stocks, although some tributaries may 
have maintained native stocks. Widespread freshwater habitat 
degradation was noted as a risk factor by the 1995 BRT.
    We conducted a second status review of this ESU in 1996. The BRT 
considered new data on ESU abundance and productivity as well as new 
analyses on ESU viability based on marine conditions and habitat 
quality (Nickelson and Lawson, 1998). For absolute abundance, the 1996 
total average (5-year geometric mean) spawner abundance of OC coho 
salmon (44,500) and corresponding ocean run size (72,000) were less 
than one-tenth of ocean run sizes estimated in the late 1800s and early 
1900s, and only about one-third of 1950s ocean run sizes (Oregon 
Department of Fish and Wildlife, 1995). Long-term trend estimates 
through 1996 showed that for escapement, run size, and recruits per 
spawner, trends were negative. The BRT also noted concerns about the 
influence of hatchery fish and the quality and quantity of habitat 
available to this ESU.
    In 1996, the BRT concluded that, assuming that current conditions 
continued into the future (and that proposed harvest and hatchery 
reforms were not implemented), the OC coho salmon ESU was not at 
significant short-term risk of extinction, but it was likely to become 
endangered in the foreseeable future. A minority disagreed, and felt 
that the ESU was not likely to become endangered. The BRT generally 
agreed that implementation of the harvest and hatchery reforms would 
have a positive effect on the ESU's status, but they were about evenly 
split as to whether the effects would be substantial enough to move the 
ESU out of the ``likely to become endangered'' category, because of 
uncertainty about the adequacy of freshwater habitat and trends in 
ocean survival.
    In 2003, we initiated a coast-wide status review of Pacific salmon 
and steelhead including OC coho salmon. The 2003 BRT (Good et al., 
2005) noted several improvements in the OC coho salmon's status as 
compared to the previous assessment in 1996. For example, adult 
spawners for this ESU in 2001 and 2002 exceeded the number observed for 
any year in the past several decades, and preharvest run size rivaled 
some of the high abundances observed in the 1970s (although well below 
historical levels), including increases in the formerly depressed 
northern part of the ESU. Hatchery reforms were increasingly being 
implemented, and the fraction of natural spawners that were first-
generation hatchery fish was reduced in many areas, compared to highs 
in the early to mid-1990s. On the other hand, the years of good returns 
just prior to 2003 were preceded by three years of low spawner 
escapements, the result of three consecutive years of recruitment 
failure, in which the natural spawners did not replace themselves, even 
in the absence of any directed harvest. These three years of 
recruitment failure were the only such instance observed in the entire 
time series considered. Whereas the increases in spawner escapement

[[Page 29492]]

just prior to 2003 resulted in long-term trends in spawners that were 
generally positive, the long-term trends in productivity as of 2003 
were still strongly negative.
    For the 2003 conclusions, a majority of the BRT opinion was in the 
``likely to become endangered'' category, with a substantial minority 
falling in the ``not likely to become endangered'' category. Although 
they considered the significantly higher returns in 2001 and 2002 to be 
encouraging, most BRT members felt that the factor responsible for the 
increases was more likely to be unusually favorable marine productivity 
conditions than improvement in freshwater productivity.

Current Review of the OC Coho Salmon ESU

    During this new review for the OC coho salmon we convened a new BRT 
to assist us in carrying out the most recent status review for OC coho 
salmon. The BRT was composed of Federal scientists from our Northwest 
and Southwest Fisheries Science Centers and the USDA Forest Service. As 
part of their evaluation, the BRT considered ESU boundaries, membership 
of fish from hatchery programs within the ESU, ESU extinction risks, 
and threats facing this ESU. The BRT evaluated new data on ESU 
abundance, marine survival, ESU productivity, and spatial structure. 
They considered the work products of the Oregon/Northern California 
Coast Technical Recovery Team and information submitted by the public, 
state agencies, and other Federal agencies. They also considered 
threats to this ESU, trends in habitat complexity, and potential 
effects of global climate change.

New Information Available Since the Last OC Coho Salmon ESU Status 
Review

    Since our status review of the OC coho salmon ESU in 2005 (Good et 
al., 2005), new information is available for consideration. Good et al. 
(2005) analyzed OC coho adult returns through 2003. We now have 
information on adult returns and marine survival rates through 2009. 
Also the marking of all hatchery-produced fish and increased monitoring 
on the spawning grounds have improved our ability to predict the 
effects of hatchery production on the long-term viability of the ESU.
    In addition to the new biological data available, new analyses are 
available since the 2005 review. These analyses were produced by the 
Oregon/Northern California Coast Technical Recovery Team (https://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/trt/oregonncal.cfm). This team is one of several 
technical recovery teams convened in the Pacific Northwest to help us 
develop recovery plans for ESA-listed salmon and steelhead. These teams 
are different from BRTs and focus on developing information on 
historical population structure and ESA technical products to support 
development of ESA recovery criteria. Technical recovery teams are 
comprised of Federal, state, and tribal biologists as well as 
scientists from private consulting firms and academia.
    The Oregon/Northern California Coast Technical Recovery Team 
produced two reports, Identification of Historical Populations of Coho 
Salmon in the Oregon Coast Evolutionarily Significant Unit (Lawson et 
al., 2007) and Biological Recovery Criteria for the Oregon Coast Coho 
Salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit (Wainwright et al., 2008), which 
were considered by the BRT in their assessment of this ESU's status. 
Lawson et al. (2007) identified 56 historic populations that function 
collectively to form the OC coho salmon ESU. Populations were 
identified as independent, potentially independent, and dependent. This 
ESU's long-term viability relies on the larger independent and 
potentially independent populations (Lawson et al., 2007). Dependent 
populations occupy smaller watersheds and rely on straying from 
neighboring independent populations to remain viable. Populations were 
grouped together to form five biogeographic strata-- North Coast, Mid-
Coast, Lakes, Umpqua, and Mid-South Coast. Collectively, the five 
strata form the ESU as a whole.
    Wainwright et al. (2008) used a decision support system to assess 
the viability of the OC coho salmon ESU and form the basis of 
recommended ESA recovery criteria for this ESU. The decision support 
system is based on the population structure identified by Lawson et al. 
(2007) and builds on concepts developed in that report. It is a 
computer-based tool that can analyze and compare numerous pieces of 
data (Turban and Aronson, 2001). The decision support system begins 
with evaluating a number of primary biological criteria that are 
defined in terms of logical (true/false) statements about biological 
processes essential to the persistence or sustainability of the OC coho 
salmon ESU. These biological criteria include population abundance, 
diversity, distribution, and habitat quantity and quality. Evaluating 
these primary criteria with respect to available observations results 
in a ``truth value'' in the range from -1 (false) to +1 (true). 
Intermediate values between these extremes reflect the degree of 
certainty of the statement given available knowledge, with a value of 
zero indicating complete uncertainty about whether the statement is 
true or false. These primary criteria are then combined logically with 
other criteria at the same geographic scale and then combined across 
geographic scales (population, strata, and ESU). The end result is an 
evaluation of the biological status of the ESU as a whole, with an 
indication of the degree of certainty of that evaluation (Wainwright et 
al., 2008). The model output describes the likelihood that the ESU is 
persistent and sustainable. The model predicts the likelihood that the 
ESU will persist (i.e., not go extinct) over a 100-year time frame. 
This includes the ability to survive prolonged periods of adverse 
environmental conditions that may be expected to occur at least once 
during the 100-year time frame. In the sustainability portion of the 
analysis, the model predicts the likelihood that the ESU will retain 
its genetic legacy and long-term adaptive potential into the 
foreseeable future (foreseeable future is not defined for this 
criterion), based on the stability of habitat conditions and other 
factors necessary for the full expression of life history diversity. A 
detailed description of the decision support system can be found in 
Wainwright et al. (2008) and the new BRT report (Stout et al., 2010).

ESU Boundaries and Hatchery Fish Membership

    The BRT evaluated new information related to ESU boundaries, and 
found evidence that no ESU boundary changes are necessary (Stout et 
al., 2010). The basis for their conclusion is that the environmental 
and biogeographical information considered during the first coast-wide 
BRT review of coho salmon (Weitkamp et al., 1995) remains unchanged, 
and new tagging and genetic analysis published subsequent to the 
original ESU boundary designation continues to support the current ESU 
boundaries. The BRT also evaluated ESU membership of fish from hatchery 
programs since the last BRT review (Good et al., 2005). In doing so, 
they applied our Policy on the Consideration of Hatchery-Origin Fish in 
ESA Listing Determinations (70 FR 37204; June 28, 2005). The BRT noted 
that many hatchery programs within this ESU have been discontinued 
since the first review of coast-wide status of coho salmon (Weitkamp et 
al., 1995). They identified only three programs--the North Fork 
Nehalem, Trask (Tillamook basin) and Cow Creek (South Umpqua)--that

[[Page 29493]]

produce coho salmon within the boundaries of this ESU.
    The North Fork Nehalem coho stocks are managed as an isolated 
harvest program. Natural-origin fish have not been intentionally 
incorporated into the brood stock since 1986 and only adipose fin 
clipped brood stock have been taken since the late 1990s. Because of 
this, the stock is considered to have substantial divergence from the 
native natural population and is not included in the OC coho salmon 
ESU. The Trask (Tillamook population) coho salmon stock is also managed 
as an isolated harvest program. Natural-origin fish have not been 
incorporated into the brood stock since 1996 when all returns were mass 
marked. Therefore, this stock is considered to have substantial 
divergence from the native natural population and, based on our Policy 
on the Consideration of Hatchery-Origin Fish in ESA Listing 
Determinations, is not included in the OC coho salmon ESU.
    The Cow Creek stock (South Umpqua Population) is managed as an 
integrated program and is included as part of the ESU because the 
original brood stock was founded from the local natural-origin 
population and natural-origin coho salmon have been incorporated into 
the brood stock on a regular basis. This brood stock was founded in 
1987 from natural-origin coho salmon returns to the base of Galesville 
Dam on Cow Creek, a tributary to the South Umpqua River. Subsequently, 
brood stock has continued to be collected from returns to the dam, with 
natural-origin coho salmon comprising 25 percent to 100 percent of the 
brood stock nearly every year since returning fish have been externally 
tagged. The Cow Creek stock is probably no more than moderately 
diverged from the local natural-origin coho salmon population in the 
South Umpqua River because of these brood stock practices and is 
therefore considered a part of this ESU.

BRT Extinction Risk Assessment

    The BRT conducted an extinction risk assessment for the OC coho 
salmon ESU considering available information on trends in abundance and 
productivity, genetic diversity, population spatial structure, and 
marine survival rates. They also considered trends in freshwater 
habitat complexity and threats to this ESU, including possible effects 
from global climate change.
    The BRT noted that spawning escapements in some recent years have 
been higher than the past 60 years. This is attributable to a 
combination of management actions and environmental conditions. In 
particular, harvest has been strongly curtailed since 1994, allowing 
more fish to return to the spawning grounds. Hatchery production has 
been reduced to a small fraction of the natural-origin production. 
Nickelson (2003) found that reduced hatchery production led directly to 
higher survival of naturally produced fish, and Buhle et al. (2009) 
found that the reduction in hatchery releases of Oregon coast coho 
salmon in the mid-1990's resulted in increased natural coho salmon 
abundance. Ocean survival, as measured by smolt to adult survival of 
Oregon Production Index area hatchery fish, generally started improving 
for fish returning in 1999 (Stout et al., 2010). In combination, these 
factors have resulted in the highest spawning escapements since 1950, 
although total abundance before harvest peaked at the low end of what 
was observed in the 1970s (Stout et al., 2010).
    The BRT applied the decision support system of the Technical 
Recovery Team (Wainwright et al., 2008) to help assess viability and 
risk level for this ESU. The BRT made a change to the decision support 
system model and reran the model with data through 2008. This change 
was to use a different data set to determine the abundance level at 
which there are so few adult fish on the spawning grounds that they 
have trouble finding mates (which results in ``depensation'' or reduced 
spawning success). Depensation is thought to occur at spawner densities 
below four fish per mile (Wainwright et al., 2008). The Technical 
Recovery Team had used ``area-under-the-curve'' counts for the critical 
abundance criterion in the decision support system, while the BRT chose 
to use peak count data. Area-under-the-curve counts (which refers to 
the total numbers of fish returning over the entire adult run time) are 
almost always higher than peak counts because they include fish present 
on the spawning grounds over a longer period of time. Peak counts are 
simply the highest number of fish observed at any one time. The BRT 
concluded that peak abundance counts were more likely to capture the 
potential for depensation because the effect occurs for fish that are 
on the spawning grounds at the same time (that is, fish need to find 
mates that are on the spawning grounds at the same time they are).
    The BRT's result using the decision support system was 0.09 for ESU 
persistence. A value of 1.0 would indicate complete confidence that the 
ESU will persist for the next 100 years, a value of -1.0 would indicate 
complete certainty of failure to persist, and a value of 0 would 
indicate no certainty of either persistence or extinction. The BRT 
therefore interpreted a value of 0.09 as indicating a low certainty of 
ESU persistence over the next 100 years. The decision support system 
result for ESU sustainability was 0.21, indicating a low-to-moderate 
certainty that the ESU is sustainable for the foreseeable future. These 
results reflect the model's measure of ESU sustainability and 
persistence under current conditions.
    The overall ESU persistence and sustainability scores summarize a 
great deal of variability in population and stratum level information 
on viability. For example, although the overall persistence score was 
0.09, the scores for individual populations ranged from -1 (Sixes 
River) to +0.99 (Tenmile Lakes), and approximately half (10/21) of the 
independent and potentially-independent populations had persistence 
scores greater than 0.25. The stratum level persistence scores were 
calculated as the median of the population scores. Only the Lakes 
stratum had a very high certainty of stratum persistence (0.94), 
followed by the Mid-South Coast (0.19). The Mid-Coast score for stratum 
persistence was slightly negative (-0.05). Population sustainability 
scores ranged from -1.0 in three populations to a high of 0.94 in 
Tenmile Lake. The stratum scores for sustainability were less variable. 
Again, the Lakes had the highest score (0.72). North Coast, Mid Coast, 
and Umpqua had scores indicating a low to moderate certainty of 
sustainability (0.21 to 0.29), while the Mid-South Coast scored 
somewhat higher for stratum sustainability (0.50).
    The BRT's decision support system scores suggested a higher 
certainty of sustainability than persistence, a counter-intuitive 
result. (That is, one would expect a population that has a good chance 
of maintaining its genetic legacy and long-term adaptive potential for 
the foreseeable future to also have a good chance of not going extinct 
in 100 years. In addition, the BRT was concerned that the values for 
the population functionality criterion are strongly influenced by basin 
size, and all large populations scored 1.0 regardless of overall 
habitat quality within the basin. For example, for the largest river 
system in the ESU, the Umpqua River, all four populations had a 
functionality score of 1.0, even though the BRT had serious concerns 
about habitat conditions for these populations. For these and other 
reasons, the BRT considered other methods of assessing ESU viability 
and in particular, habitat conditions.

[[Page 29494]]

Introduction to Habitat Analysis

    The BRT evaluated habitat conditions across the range of the OC 
coho salmon ESU in two new analyses. An analysis using newly available 
Landsat images (the Landsat Program is a series of Earth-observing 
satellite missions jointly managed by NASA and the U.S. Geological 
Survey) mapped patterns of forest disturbance over the ESU from 1986 to 
2008, revealing different rates of disturbance across basins and 
strata. A second analysis addressed the question ``is stream habitat 
complexity improving?'' To answer this question, the BRT quantified 
stream habitat complexity over the past 10 years from in-stream habitat 
surveys and analyzed for trends.

Landsat Analysis

    Recent public availability of Landsat imagery and the development 
of tools for analysis have made it possible to analyze disturbance 
patterns on a fine temporal and spatial scale, allowing a 
comprehensive, uniform picture of disturbance patterns that was 
heretofore unavailable. In an analysis conducted for the BRT, satellite 
annual vegetation maps of the OC salmon ESU from 1986 to 2008 were 
analyzed for patterns of disturbance. Disturbance in this analysis was 
removal of vegetative cover, primarily through timber harvest or fire. 
The scale of resolution of these analyses is approximately 100 meters 
(328 feet), so individual clear cuts and forest thinning operations 
were clearly detectable on an annual basis.
    The BRT noted that disturbance was wide-spread over the ESU, and 
varied over space, time, and land ownership. Some river systems 
experienced higher disturbance than others, with 14 percent to 50 
percent of individual basins disturbed since 1986. Rates of disturbance 
were relatively constant, but the most intense disturbance has moved 
from Federal (USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management) 
to private non-industrial lands, presumably in response to policy 
changes (i.e., implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan).

New Habitat Trend Analysis

    The BRT's analysis indicates that the OC coho salmon ESU is in 
better condition, particularly in terms of total abundance, than it was 
during the previous status reviews. However, productivity in several 
recent years was remains below replacement, highlighting the long-
standing concern for this ESU that freshwater habitat may not be 
sufficient to maintain the ESU at times when marine conditions are 
poor. The BRT noted that the criteria in the decision support system do 
not meaningfully evaluate freshwater habitat conditions for this ESU. 
To address this deficiency, the BRT undertook new analyses of habitat 
complexity across the freshwater habitat of this ESU.
    The BRT relied on habitat monitoring data from the ODFW Habitat 
Monitoring Program. ODFW has been monitoring the wadeable stream 
(streams that would be shallow enough for an adult to wade across 
during survey efforts) portion of the freshwater rearing habitat for 
the OC coho salmon ESU over the past decade (1998 to present) 
collecting data during the summer low flow period (Anlauf et al., 
2009). The goal of this program is to measure the status and trend of 
habitat conditions throughout the range of the ESU through variables 
related to the quality and quantity of aquatic habitat for coho salmon: 
stream morphology, substrate composition, instream roughness, riparian 
structure, and winter rearing capacity (Moore, 2008). The ODFW habitat 
survey design is based on 1\st\ through 3\rd\ order streams (USGS 
1:100k and ODFW 1:24k). The sampling design is based on a generalized 
random-tessellation stratified survey (Stevens and Olsen, 2004) that 
selects potential sample sites from all candidate stream reaches in a 
spatially balanced manner. The full survey design incorporates a 
``rotating panel'' of sampling sites; 25 percent of the sites are 
surveyed annually, 25 percent every 3 years, 25 percent every 9 years, 
and 25 percent new surveys each year. This provides a balanced way to 
monitor short-term and long-term trends and to evaluate new areas. Due 
to the availability of these data, the BRT was able to examine trends 
in habitat complexity over the past 11 years.
    In addition, ODFW provided more information to the BRT on the 
status of aquatic habitats in the OC coho salmon ESU in the form of 
presentations, comments, and a publication (Anlauf et al., 2009). ODFW 
analyzed trends in individual stream habitat attributes, including wood 
volume, percent fine sediments and percent gravel. They analyzed these 
attributes separately as linear trends by year in the North Coast, Mid-
Coast, Umpqua River, and Mid-South Coast strata. They also analyzed 
winter rearing capacity for juvenile coho salmon with their Habitat 
Limiting Factors Model (HLFM (version 7)), which integrates habitat 
attributes. This model emphasizes percent and complexity of pools, and 
amount of off-channel pools and beaver ponds. In the ODFW/Anlauf et al. 
(2009) HLFM analysis, ODFW used parametric statistical methods to 
produce a point estimate of habitat condition. They concluded that for 
the most part, at the ESU and strata scale, habitat for the OC coho 
salmon has not changed significantly in the last decade. They did find 
some small but significant trends. For instance the Mid-South Coast 
sttatum did show a positive increase in winter rearing capacity.
    The BRT was concerned that the analysis of trends of individual 
habitat attributes presented by ODFW/Anlauf et al. (2009) does not 
capture interactions among the various habitat attributes and does not 
adequately represent habitat complexity. In addition, the HLFM analysis 
presented by ODFW/Anlauf et al. (2009) used monitoring data for sites 
that had been surveyed only once or twice. The BRT concluded that using 
sites that had been visited at least three times would enhance their 
ability to discern trends. To address these concerns, the BRT: (1) 
asked ODFW to re-run the HLFM using only data from sites that had been 
surveyed at least three times during the 1998--2008 period, and (2) 
used the ODFW habitat monitoring data in a model developed by the U.S. 
Forest Service Aquatic and Riparian Effectiveness Monitoring Program 
(AREMP) (Reeves et al., 2004; Reeves et al., 2006). For the re-running 
of the HLFM analysis, ODFW estimated both summer and winter rearing 
capacity (the ability to predict summer rearing capacity was a new 
function of the model not available at the time Anlauf et al. (2009) 
prepared their report). In the AREMP model, the BRT used the ODFW 
monitoring program's data for key wood pieces, residual pool depth and 
percent fine sediment to generate habitat complexity indicators for 
stream reaches within populations of the OC coho salmon. Using several 
models allowed the BRT to compare multiple estimates of stream habitat 
complexity.
    The BRT anticipated that there may be spatial structure in trends 
of habitat complexity patterns over time due to biogeographic 
differences present at the scale of strata. For instance, habitat 
complexity in streams in the Umpqua River basin might be expected to 
change at a rate different from the streams in the North Coast Basin. 
This is because the Umpqua Basin is further south and drains part of 
the Cascade Mountains, while the North Coast streams are at the 
northern extent of this ESU's range and drain only the Oregon Coastal 
Mountains. There are biological, geological, hydrological, and 
precipitation pattern differences that affect stream habitat conditions 
in these basins. Differences in land-use practices

[[Page 29495]]

will also affect changes in habitat complexity over large spatial 
scales. For example, the Tillamook State Forest has been recovering 
from a series of fires (the ``Tillamook Burn'') that burned 355,000 
acres (1437 square kilometers) between 1933 and 1951, and little timber 
harvest has occurred in that area. On the other hand, some areas of the 
South Coast have experienced ongoing industrial timber harvest over the 
past 20 years.
     In contrast to the analytical method employed by ODFW/Anlauf et 
al. (2009), the BRT applied a Bayesian mixed regression model to 
estimate rate of change for habitat complexity scores at the stratum, 
population and site (habitat monitoring trend site) levels. In this 
analysis, the trends in both the AREMP and HLFM (second run of the 
model at the BRT's request) data were negative, indicating there is a 
high likelihood that habitat complexity has declined over the past 
decade. General patterns among the AREMP channel condition, the HLFM 
summer rearing capacity, and the HLFM winter rearing capacity were 
consistent. All three modeling results showed a moderate probability 
that habitat complexity has declined across the range of this ESU. The 
North Coast Stratum and Mid-South Coast Stratum showed the strongest 
and most consistent declines. For the Mid-Coast Stratum, the HLFM 
showed no trend in summer and winter juvenile rearing capacity, while 
the AREMP showed moderate decline in channel condition. The biggest 
difference between model results was observed in the Umpqua River 
stratum. The AREMP model showed no trend in channel condition, while 
the HLFM showed a strong decline in summer and winter juvenile rearing 
capacity. There was no consistent pattern in the differences between 
model results; in the Mid-Coast Stratum the AREMP showed declines while 
the HLFM did not. In the Umpqua River Stratum, the HLFM showed declines 
while the AREMP did not. There were no strong positive trends observed 
in any stratum. The BRT's analyses indicate that habitat complexity 
over the ESU has not improved over the past decade. At best, habitat 
complexity has been holding steady in some areas while declining in 
others.
    Like the ODFW/ Anlauf et al. (2009) trend analysis of individual 
habitat attributes, the BRT's analyses found that habitat complexity 
across the ESU did not improve over the period of consideration (1998-
2008) regardless of the habitat metric chosen for comparison. The ODFW/ 
Anlauf et al. (2009) trend analysis based on individual habitat 
attributes found no evidence of trends in the Umpqua River or Mid-Coast 
strata. In the BRT analyses, results from the AREMP channel complexity 
model do not show a trend up or down in the Umpqua River stratum. 
However, the HLFM summer and winter rearing capacity analyses (second 
run of the model conducted at the BRT's request) do show negative 
trends in the Umpqua River stratum. AREMP channel complexity and HLFM 
model results for the Mid-Coast Stratum are mixed, with no consistent 
indication of a trend in either direction.
    In the ODFW/Anlauf et al. (2009) trend analysis of individual 
habitat attributes, all of the statistically significant trends in 
habitat complexity were observed in the North Coast and Mid-South Coast 
strata (Anlauf et al., 2009). The results for the North Coast Stratum 
showed a declining trend in sediment and wood volume, but an increase 
in gravel. The Mid-South Coast Stratum showed an increase in sediment 
but a decreasing trend in the proportion of gravel. Although the ODFW /
Anlauf et al. (2009) analysis of individual habitat attributes showed 
that trends in gravel and sediment in the North Coast and Mid-South 
Coast strata are in opposite directions, the multivariate AREMP channel 
condition analysis performed by the BRT found that both North Coast and 
Mid-South Coast strata showed strong negative declines. While these 
results may seem contradictory, the observation that individual metrics 
(ODFW trend analysis) behave differently than integrated, multivariate 
indicators (AREMP and HFLM analysis) is a key point -- fish habitat is 
multidimensional, potentially declining even as components such as 
large wood or sediment increase at different spatial scales.
    The ODFW/Anlauf et al. (2009) HLFM model run showed an 8.9 percent 
annual increase in winter rearing capacity in the Mid-South Coast. The 
BRT's results (including the second running of the HLFM model by ODFW) 
showed that the Mid-South Coast Stratum had the most certain negative 
trends for AREMP channel condition and HLFM summer and winter rearing 
capacity analyses. Compared to the 8.9 percent estimated increase in 
winter capacity by ODFW/Anlauf et al. (2009) for the Mid-South Coast 
Stratum, the second run of the HLFM summer and winter rearing model 
estimated a summer capacity decline of 8 percent and a winter capacity 
decline of 3 percent.
    There are several important differences between the BRT analyses 
and the ODFW/Anlauf et al. (2009) analyses. These differences are 
likely responsible for different conclusions. First, the habitat 
variables considered in the BRT analyses represented aggregate indices 
(winter rearing capacity score, summer rearing capacity score, or AREMP 
Channel Condition score). One portion of the ODFW/Anlauf et al. (2009) 
trend analysis examined trends only in measured individual habitat 
variables (wood volume, fine sediment, gravel), although the HLFM 
winter rearing capacity analysis produced an aggregate index. The 
second difference is that for the HLFM winter rearing capacity 
analysis, ODFW/ Anlauf et al. (2009) utilized the entire suite of 
sampled sites for wood volume, fine sediment and gravel, and the second 
run of the HLFM winter and summer rearing capacity analysis used a 
subset of sites sampled (only those sites that had been sampled 3 
times). A third important difference is the model framework used. The 
BRT analysis was done using Bayesian methods as opposed to the 
parametric statistical methods employed by ODFW.
    In summary, the BRT considered the quality of available freshwater 
habitat using revised data sets from ODFW. The BRT examined evidence of 
trends in complexity, with the understanding that an increasing trend 
would indicate that stream habitat was improving. The BRT found that, 
for the most part, stream complexity is decreasing. In addition, The 
BRT examined patterns of disturbance from Landsat images and found that 
timber harvest activities are continuing in the ESU, with intensity 
varying among basins. The BRT noted that legacy effects of splash 
damming, log drives, and stream cleaning activities still affect the 
amount and type of wood and gravel substrate available and, therefore, 
stream complexity across the ESU (Miller, 2009; Montgomery et al., 
2003). Road densities remain high and affect stream quality through 
hydrologic effects like runoff and siltation and by providing access 
for human activities. Beaver (Castor canadensis) activities, which 
produce the most favorable coho salmon rearing habitat especially in 
lowland areas, appear to be reduced. Stream habitat restoration 
activities may be having a short-term positive effect in some areas, 
but the quantity of impaired habitat and the rate of continued 
disturbance outpace agencies' ability to conduct effective restoration.

BRT Extinction Risk Conclusions

    In order to reach its final extinction risk conclusions, the BRT 
used a ``risk matrix'' as a method to organize and summarize the 
professional judgment of

[[Page 29496]]

a panel of knowledgeable scientists with regard to extinction risk of 
the species. This approach is described in detail by Wainright and Kope 
(1999) and has been used for over 10 years in our Pacific salmonid and 
other marine species status reviews. In this risk matrix approach, the 
collective condition of individual populations is summarized at the ESU 
level according to four demographic risk criteria: abundance, growth 
rate/productivity, spatial structure/connectivity, and diversity. These 
viability criteria, outlined in McElhany et al. (2000), reflect 
concepts that are well founded in conservation biology and are 
generally applicable to a wide variety of species. These criteria 
describe demographic risks that individually and collectively provide 
strong indicators of extinction risk. The summary of demographic risks 
and other pertinent information obtained by this approach is then 
considered by the BRT in determining the species' overall level of 
extinction risk. This analysis process is described in detail in the 
BRT's report (Stout et al., 2010). The scoring for the risk criteria 
correspond to the following values: 1-very low risk, 2-low risk, 3-
moderate risk, 4-high risk, 5-very high risk.
    After reviewing all relevant biological information for the 
species, each BRT member assigns a risk score to each of the four 
demographic criteria. The scores are tallied (means, modes, and range 
of scores), reviewed, and the range of perspectives discussed by the 
BRT before making its overall risk determination. To allow individuals 
to express uncertainty in determining the overall level of extinction 
risk facing the species, the BRT adopted the ``likelihood point'' 
method, often referred to as the ``FEMAT'' method because it is a 
variation of a method used by scientific teams evaluating options under 
the Northwest Forest Plan (FEMAT 1993). In this approach, each BRT 
member distributes ten likelihood points among the three species' 
extinction risk categories, reflecting their opinion of how likely that 
category correctly reflects the species true status. This method has 
been used in all status reviews for anadromous Pacific salmonids since 
1999, as well as in reviews of Puget Sound rockfishes (Stout et al., 
2001b), Pacific herring (Stout et al., 2001a; Gustafson et al., 2006), 
Pacific hake, walleye pollock, Pacific cod (Gustafson et al., 2000), 
eulachon (Gustafson et al., 2008) and black abalone (Butler et al., 
2008).
    For the OC coho salmon ESU, the BRT conducted both the risk matrix 
analysis and the overall extinction risk assessment under two different 
sets of assumptions. Case 1: The BRT evaluated extinction risk based on 
the demographic risk criteria (abundance, growth rate, spatial 
structure and diversity) currently exhibited by the species, assuming 
that the threats influencing ESU status would continue unchanged into 
the future. This case in effect assumes that all of the threats 
evaluated by the BRT are fully manifest in the current ESU status and 
will in aggregate neither worsen nor improve in the future. Case 2: The 
BRT also evaluated extinction risk based on the demographic risk 
criteria currently exhibited by the species, taking into account 
predicted changes to threats that were not yet manifest in the current 
demographic status of the ESU. In effect, this scenario asked the BRT 
to evaluate whether threats to the ESU would lessen, worsen, or remain 
constant compared to current conditions. Information gathered by the 
BRT about current and future threats was evaluated to help guide its 
risk voting under this scenario.
    The risk matrix scores differed considerably for the two cases. 
When only current biological status was considered (Case 1), the median 
score for each demographic risk criterion was 2 (low risk) and the mean 
scores ranged from 2 to 2.47. Current abundance was rated as less of a 
risk factor than productivity, spatial structure, and diversity. When 
future conditions were taken into account (Case 2), median scores 
increased to 3 (moderate risk) for each factor, and mean scores ranged 
from 2.8 for abundance to 3.27 for productivity. BRT members also 
separately scored the overall risk associated with threats that they 
believed were not yet manifest in current demographic criteria (Case 
2), and the median score for these threats was 4 (high risk).
    The assessment of overall extinction risk for the OC coho salmon 
ESU also differed substantially depending on what was assumed about the 
future. When only current biological status was considered (Case 1), 
the overall assessment was closely split between low risk (49 percent 
of the likelihood points) and moderate risk (44 percent), with high 
risk receiving 7 percent of the likelihood points. The BRT's evaluation 
of risk under this scenario largely reflects the results of the 
decision support system, which the BRT interpreted as indicating 
considerable uncertainty about ESU status under current conditions. 
When the BRT evaluated risk while taking into account future changes to 
threats (Case 2), the assessment became more pessimistic with 25 
percent of the likelihood points falling in low risk, 54 percent in 
moderate risk, and 21 percent in high risk. The increase in the 
proportion of the likelihood points in the moderate and high risk 
categories reflects the BRT's conclusions that, on balance, the threats 
facing OC coho salmon are likely to grow more severe in the future.
    Under the assumption that current conditions continue into the 
future (Case 1), the BRT's primary concern was that current freshwater 
habitat conditions may not be able to sustain the ESU in the face of 
normal fluctuations in marine survival. The BRT noted that the legacy 
of past forest management practices combined with lowland agriculture 
and urban development has resulted in a situation in which the areas of 
highest intrinsic potential habitat capacity are now degraded. The BRT 
decision was also influenced by its new stream complexity trend 
analysis and its new Landsat-based forest disturbance analysis. The 
results of these analyses lend support to the conclusion that the 
effects of historic and on-going land management activities are still 
negatively influencing stream habitat complexity.
    Like previous BRTs evaluating the status of OC coho salmon, the 
most recent BRT was also concerned about the long-term downward trend 
in productivity of this ESU. The BRT noted that natural spawning 
abundance and total (pre-harvest) adult abundance has increased 
markedly over the past decade due to a combination of improved ocean 
survival, lower harvest rates, and reduced hatchery production. 
However, the BRT was concerned that much of the increase in pre-harvest 
adult abundance could be attributed to increases in marine survival 
that are expected to fluctuate naturally, with a smaller proportion of 
the increase attributable to hatchery and harvest recovery actions 
(Buhle et al., 2009). The BRT noted that the reduction in risks from 
hatchery and harvest are expected to help buffer the ESU when marine 
survival returns to a lower level, likely resulting in improved status 
compared to the situation a decade ago. On balance, however, the BRT 
was uncertain about the ESU's ability to survive another prolonged 
period of low ocean survivals, and this translated into greater concern 
about the overall risk to the ESU under current conditions.
    The BRT was more certain about overall risk status when taking into 
account predictable changes to the threats facing the population, with 
a clear majority of the likelihood points falling in the moderate or 
high risk categories. The BRT was particularly

[[Page 29497]]

concerned that global climate change will lead to a long-term downward 
trend in both freshwater and marine coho salmon habitat compared to 
current conditions in this ESU. The BRT evaluated the available 
scientific information on the effects of predicted climate change on 
the freshwater and marine environments inhabited by OC coho salmon. 
Although there was considerable uncertainty about the magnitude of most 
effects, the BRT was concerned that most changes associated with 
climate change are expected to result in poorer habitat conditions for 
OC coho salmon than exist currently. Some members of the BRT noted that 
freshwater effects of climate change may not be as severe on the Oregon 
coast as in other parts of the Pacific Northwest, and the distribution 
of overall risk scores reflects this.
    In addition to effects due to global climate change, the BRT was 
also concerned that freshwater habitat for the ESU would continue to 
degrade from current conditions due to local effects. The BRT noted 
that despite increased habitat protections on Federal lands with the 
implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan in the mid-1990s (FEMAT, 
1993), timber harvest activities have increased on private industrial 
lands. The BRT's new habitat analysis indicates that stream habitat 
complexity has decreased since 1998. Conversion of forests to urban 
uses was also a concern (e.g., Kline et al., 2001), particularly for 
the North Coast, mid-south Coast, and Umpqua. The BRT was also 
concerned that a lack of protection for beaver would result in downward 
trends for this important habitat forming species. Some BRT members 
felt that the data indicating that freshwater habitat conditions were 
likely to worsen from current levels in the future were equivocal, and 
the distribution of risk matrix and overall threats scores reflects 
this uncertainty.
    The BRT did note some ongoing positive changes that are likely to 
become manifest in abundance trends for the ESU in the future. In 
particular, hatchery production continues to be reduced with the 
cessation of releases in the North Umpqua and Salmon River populations, 
and the BRT expects that the near-term ecological benefits from these 
reductions would result in improved survival for these populations in 
the future. In addition, the BRT expected that reductions in hatchery 
releases that have occurred over the past decade would continue to 
produce some positive effects on the survival of the ESU in the future, 
due to the time it may take for past genetic impacts to become 
attenuated. The BRT also concluded that stream habitat conditions on 
Federal land would ultimately improve in the future under the Northwest 
Forest Plan, even though their analysis indicated an apparent decrease 
in habitat quality over the last decade. The BRT concluded that, when 
future conditions are taken into account, the OC coho salmon ESU as a 
whole is at moderate risk of extinction. The BRT therefore did not need 
to explicitly address whether the ESU was at risk in only a significant 
portion of its range.

Consideration of ESA section 4(a)(1) Factors

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

    Our previous Federal Register Notices and BRT reports (Weitkamp et 
al, 1995; Good et al., 2005), as well as numerous other reports and 
assessments (ODFW, 1995; State of Oregon, 2005; State of Oregon 2007), 
have reviewed in detail the effects of historical and ongoing land 
management practices that have altered OC coho salmon habitat. The BRT 
reviewed the factors that have led to the current degraded condition of 
OC coho salmon habitat. We will briefly summarize this information here 
and direct readers to the BRT report (Stout et al., 2010) for more 
detail.
    Historical and ongoing timber harvest and road building have 
reduced stream shade, increased fine sediment levels, reduced levels of 
instream large wood, and altered watershed hydrology. Historical splash 
damming removed stream roughness elements such as boulders and large 
wood and in some cases scoured streams to bedrock. Fish passage has 
been blocked in many streams by improperly designed culverts. Fish 
passage has been restricted in some estuary areas by tidegates.
    Urbanization has resulted in loss of streamside vegetation and 
added impervious surfaces, which alter normal hydraulic processes. 
Agricultural activities have removed stream-side vegetation. Building 
of dikes and levees has disconnected streams from their floodplains and 
results in loss of natural stream sinuosity. Stormwater and 
agricultural runoff reaching streams is often contaminated by 
hydrocarbons, fertilizers, pesticides, and other contaminants. In the 
Umpqua River basin, diversion of water for agriculture reduces base 
stream flow and may result