Listing Endangered and Threatened Species: Threatened Status for the Oregon Coast Coho Salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit, 35755-35771 [2011-15080]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

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


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 223

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


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

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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

DATES: Effective June 20, 2011.

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

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

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

[[Page 35756]]

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

Summary of Comments Received in Response to the Proposed Rule

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

Response to Comments

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

Productivity Trends

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

Persistence Analysis

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

[[Page 35757]]

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

Climate Change and Stream Temperatures

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

[[Page 35758]]

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

Assessment of Habitat Trends

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

[[Page 35759]]

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

Fish Passage

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

Estuaries/Wetland Life History Diversity

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

Restoration

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

[[Page 35760]]

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

Artificial Propagation

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

Beavers

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

[[Page 35761]]

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

Forest and Agriculture Conversion

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

Data Used in Risk Assessment

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

[[Page 35762]]

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

Recommendations for Management

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

Predation

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

Determination of Species Under the ESA

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

[[Page 35763]]

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

Updated BRT Extinction Risk Assessment

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

New Habitat Trend Analysis

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

[[Page 35764]]

be re-analyzed, in addition to the volume of large woody debris, and 
fine organic sediment in riffles.
    Trend estimates were mixed and vary both among metrics and regions. 
Habitat complexity and summer parr capacity were decreasing in the 
Umpqua but increasing in the other regions. Winter parr capacity 
trended flat in the North Coast and Mid-Coast, but declined in the Mid-
South and Umpqua. For the percent of fine sediment in riffles, there 
appear to be declines in the North and Mid-Coast, a positive trend in 
the Mid-South, and little change in the Umpqua. Large wood volume 
appears to have declined in the North Coast and Umpqua, and increased 
in the Mid-Coast and Mid-South regions.
    In contrast to the coho rearing areas, trends in upstream areas 
were more pronounced. In particular, large woody debris declined 
substantially in all regions. Trends in sediment were mixed, with 
increases in the Mid-Coast and Mid-South, and declines in the North 
Coast and Umpqua
    The BRT was impressed with the ODFW habitat monitoring program and 
believes it is an invaluable source of information on freshwater 
habitat trends on the Oregon coast. The results from the working group 
were encouraging in that they resolved some clear discrepancies between 
earlier analyses. The BRT concluded that the results paint a complex 
picture of habitat trends along the Oregon coast. Some trends, such as 
the increase in habitat complexity and summer parr capacity