[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 87 (Tuesday, May 6, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 24588-24609]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-11571]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 227
[Docket No. 950407093-6298-03; I.D. 012595A]
Endangered and Threatened Species; Threatened Status for Southern
Oregon/Northern California Coast Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU)
of Coho Salmon
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The NMFS is issuing a final determination that the Southern
Oregon/Northern California Coast Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU)
of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) is a ``species'' under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended, and is being listed
as threatened. Coho salmon populations are very depressed in this ESU,
currently numbering less than 10,000 naturally-produced adults. The
threats to this ESU are numerous and varied. Several human-caused
factors, including habitat degradation, harvest, and artificial
propagation, exacerbate the adverse effects of natural environmental
variability brought about by drought, floods, and poor ocean
conditions. NMFS has determined that existing regulatory mechanisms are
either inadequate or not implemented well enough to conserve this ESU.
While conservation efforts are underway for some populations in this
ESU, they are not considered sufficient to change the likelihood that
the ESU as a whole will become endangered in the foreseeable future.
NMFS will issue shortly protective regulations under section 4(d) of
the ESA, which will apply section 9(a) prohibitions to this ESU, with
certain exceptions. NMFS does not expect those regulations to become
effective before July 1, 1997.
NMFS has further determined that the Oregon Coast ESU does not
warrant listing at this time. Accordingly, NMFS will consider the
Oregon Coast coho salmon ESU to be a candidate species in 3 years (or
earlier if warranted by new information).
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 5, 1997.
ADDRESSES: Garth Griffin, NMFS, Northwest Region, Protected Species
Program, 525 N.E. Oregon St., Suite 500, Portland, OR 97232-2737; Craig
Wingert, NMFS, Southwest Region, Protected Species Management Division,
501 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213; or Joe Blum,
NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver
Spring, MD 20910.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Garth Griffin at (503) 231-2005; Craig
Wingert at (310) 980-4021; or Joe Blum at (301) 713-1401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Species Background
The coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) is an anadromous salmonid
species that was historically distributed throughout the North Pacific
Ocean from central California to Point Hope, AK, through the Aleutian
Islands, and from the Anadyr River, Russia, south to Hokkaido, Japan.
Historically, this species probably inhabited most coastal streams in
Washington, Oregon, and northern and central California. Some
populations, now extinct, are believed to have migrated hundreds of
miles inland to spawn in tributaries of the upper Columbia River in
Washington and the Snake River in Idaho.
Coho salmon on the west coast of the contiguous United States and
much of British Columbia generally exhibit a relatively simple 3-year
life cycle. Adults typically begin their freshwater spawning migration
in the late summer and fall, spawn by mid-winter, and then die. The run
and spawning times vary between and within populations. Depending on
river temperatures, eggs incubate in ``redds'' (gravel nests excavated
by spawning females) for 1.5 to 4 months before hatching as ``alevins''
(a larval life stage dependent on food stored in a yolk sac). Following
yolk sac absorption, alevins emerge from the gravel as young juveniles
or ``fry'' and begin actively feeding. Juveniles rear in fresh water
for up to 15 months, then migrate to the ocean as ``smolts'' in the
spring. Coho salmon typically spend 2 growing seasons in the ocean
before returning to their natal stream to spawn as 3 year-olds. Some
precocious males, called ``jacks,'' return to spawn after only 6 months
at sea.
During this century, indigenous, naturally-reproducing populations
of coho salmon have been extirpated in nearly all Columbia River
tributaries and they are in decline in numerous coastal streams
throughout Washington, Oregon, and California. NMFS'' coho salmon
status review identified six distinct population segments (i.e., ESUs)
in Washington, Oregon, and California and noted that natural runs in
all ESUs are substantially below historical levels (Weitkamp, et al.
1995). At least 33 populations have been identified by state agencies
and conservation groups as being at moderate or high risk of
extinction. In general, the impacts on West Coast coho salmon stocks
decrease geographically from south to north, with the central
California stocks being in the worst condition.
This Federal Register document focuses on listing determinations
for two coho salmon ESUs--the Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast
ESU and the Oregon Coast ESU--both of which were proposed as threatened
species under the ESA on July 25, 1995 (60 FR 38011). The Southern
Oregon/Northern California Coast ESU is composed of populations between
Punta Gorda (CA) and Cape Blanco (OR). In the 1940s, estimated
abundance of coho salmon in this ESU ranged from 150,000 to 400,000
naturally spawning fish. Today, coho populations in this ESU are very
depressed, currently numbering approximately 10,000 naturally produced
adults. Populations in the California portion of this ESU could be less
than 6 percent of their abundance during the 1940s (CDFG, 1994), while
Oregon populations have exhibited a similar but slightly less severe
decline (ODFW, 1995); however, it is important to note that population
abundance in the Rogue River Basin has increased substantially over the
last 3 years (NMFS, 1997a). The bulk of current coho salmon production
in this ESU consists of stocks from the Rogue River, Klamath River,
Trinity River, and Eel River basins. Smaller basins known to support
coho salmon include the Elk River in Oregon, and the Smith and Mad
Rivers and Redwood Creek in California.
The Oregon Coast ESU is composed of populations between Cape Blanco
and the Columbia River. More than one million coho salmon are believed
to have returned to Oregon coastal rivers in the early 1900s
(Lichatowich, 1989), the bulk of them originating in this ESU. Current
production is estimated to be less than 10 percent of historical
levels. Spawning in this ESU is distributed over a relatively large
number of basins, both large and small, with the bulk of the production
being skewed to the southern portion of its range. There, the coastal
lake systems (e.g., the Tenmile, Tahkenitch, and Siltcoos basins) and
the Coos and Coquille Rivers have been particularly productive for coho
salmon.
[[Page 24589]]
Previous Federal ESA Actions Related to Coho Salmon
The history of petitions received regarding coho salmon is
summarized in the proposed rule published on July 25, 1995 (60 FR
38011). The most comprehensive petition was submitted by the Pacific
Rivers Council and 22 co-petitioners on October 20, 1993. In response
to that petition, NMFS assessed the best available scientific and
commercial data, including technical information from Pacific Salmon
Biological and Technical Committees (PSBTCs) in Washington, Oregon, and
California. The PSBTCs consisted of scientists with technical expertise
relevant to coho salmon. They were drawn from Federal, state, and local
resource agencies, Indian tribes, industries, professional societies,
and public interest groups. NMFS also established a Biological Review
Team (BRT), composed of staff from its Northwest Fisheries Science
Center and Southwest Regional Office, which conducted a coastwide
status review for coho salmon (Weitkamp et al., 1995).
Based on the results of the BRT report, and after considering other
information and existing conservation measures, NMFS published a
proposed listing determination (60 FR 38011, July 25, 1995) that
identified six ESUs of coho salmon ranging from southern British
Columbia to central California. The Olympic Peninsula ESU was found not
to warrant listing and the Oregon Coast ESU, Southern Oregon/Northern
California Coast ESU, and Central California Coast ESU were proposed
for listing as threatened species. The Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia
ESU and the lower Columbia River/southwest Washington Coast ESU were
identified as candidates for listing. NMFS is now in the process of
completing status reviews for these latter two ESUs; results and
findings for both will be announced in an upcoming Federal Register
notice.
On October 31, 1996, NMFS published a final rule listing the
Central California Coast ESU as a threatened species (61 FR 56138).
Concurrently, NMFS announced that a 6-month extension was warranted for
the Oregon Coast and Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast ESUs (61
FR 56211) due to the fact that there was substantial disagreement
regarding the sufficiency and accuracy of the available data relevant
to the listing determination (pursuant to section 4(b)(6)(B)(i) of the
ESA). The NMFS has now completed a review of additional data pertaining
to these two ESUs and has updated its west coast coho salmon status
review (NMFS, 1997a).
Summary of Comments Regarding the Oregon Coast and Southern Oregon/
Northern California Coast ESUs
The NMFS held six public hearings in California, Oregon, and
Washington to solicit comments on the proposed listing determination
for west coast coho salmon. Sixty-three individuals presented testimony
at the hearings. During the 90-day public comment period, NMFS received
174 written comments on the proposed rule from state, Federal, and
local government agencies, Indian tribes, non-governmental
organizations, the scientific community, and other individuals. In
accordance with agency policy (59 FR 34270, July 1, 1994), NMFS also
requested a scientific peer review of the proposed rule, receiving
responses from two of the seven reviewers. A summary of major public
comments pertaining to the Oregon and Northern California coho salmon
ESUs (including issues raised by peer reviewers) is presented below,
grouped by issue categories.
Issue 1: Sufficiency and Accuracy of Scientific Information and
Analyses
Comment: Many individuals urged NMFS to use the best available
scientific information in reaching a final determination regarding the
risk of extinction that the coho salmon ESUs face. Comments received
from a peer reviewer, as well as from scientists representing state
fish and wildlife agencies, tribes, and the private sector, disputed
the sufficiency and accuracy of data that NMFS employed in its proposed
rule to list west coast coho salmon. In particular, they questioned the
data relating to the ESUs in Oregon and California. The primary areas
of disagreement concerned data relevant to risk assessment and NMFS'
evaluation of existing protective measures.
Response: The ESA requires that listing determinations be made on
the basis of a population's status which is determined by using the
best available scientific and commercial data, with subsequent
consideration being given to state and foreign efforts to protect the
species. In response to the comments summarized above, NMFS published a
document (61 FR 56211, October 31, 1996) extending the final listing
determination deadline for the Oregon Coast and Southern Oregon/
Northern California Coast ESUs for 6 months to solicit, collect, and
analyze additional data. During this period, NMFS met with fisheries
co-managers and received new and updated information on coho salmon in
British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, and California. This was deemed
critical to assessing the current status of coho salmon ESUs. This new
information, more fully described in a report from the NMFS BRT (NMFS,
1997a), generally consists of updates of existing data series, new data
series, and new analyses of various factors. NMFS also received
analyses and conservation measures associated with the OCSRI (OCSRI,
1996 and 1997). The OCSRI components relating to hatchery and harvest
measures were assessed by the BRT (NMFS, 1997a), while remaining
measures were assessed by the NMFS Habitat program (NMFS, 1997b).
NMFS believes that information contained in the agency's 1995 west
coast coho salmon status review (Weitkamp et al., 1995), together with
more recent information collected by NMFS scientists and information
provided to NMFS by other sources since the proposed listing
determination was published, represent the best scientific information
presently available for coho salmon populations on the Oregon and
California coast. NMFS believes that this information is sufficient and
accurate, and, in accordance with the ESA, finds it both mandatory and
appropriate to make a listing determination at this time. If
substantial new scientific information indicates a change in the status
of either coho salmon ESU, NMFS will reconsider the present listing
determinations.
Comment: Some commenters felt that NMFS should establish explicit
listing criteria common to all coho salmon ESUs, and noted that such
criteria would lead to different conclusions regarding extinction risk.
Response: At this time, there is no accepted methodology nor
explicit listing criteria for determining the likelihood of extinction
for Pacific salmon. In November 1996, NMFS' Northwest and Southwest
Fisheries Science Centers sponsored a symposium/workshop on ``Assessing
Extinction Risk for West Coast Salmon'' (Seattle, November 13-15,
1996). The objective of the workshop was to evaluate scientific methods
for assessing various factors contributing to extinction risk for
Pacific salmon populations. A preliminary summary of key
recommendations was considered by the BRT during the coho salmon status
review. Most of these recommendations require long-term development of
improved methods, and thus, could not be substantially applied in this
review.
[[Page 24590]]
In recent months, NMFS has also evaluated three different
population simulation models for coho salmon developed by members of
the OCSRI Science Team. The preliminary results of these viability
models provide a wide range of results, with one model suggesting that
most Oregon coastal stocks cannot sustain themselves at the ocean
survival rates that have been observed in the last 5 years (even in the
absence of harvest) and another suggesting that stocks are highly
resilient and would be at significant risk of extinction only if
habitat degradation continues into the future (more detailed
evaluations of these models are presented in NMFS' status review update
(NMFS, 1997a)). While these models have potential heuristic value, NMFS
is presently reluctant to employ them to forecast extinction risk for
coho salmon. Instead, NMFS has relied on its traditional assessment
method, which employs a variety of information types to evaluate the
level of risk faced by an ESU. These include: (1) Absolute numbers of
fish and their spatial and temporal distribution; (2) current abundance
in relation to historical abundance and carrying capacity of the
habitat; (3) trends in abundance, based on indices such as dam or redd
counts or on estimates of spawner-recruit ratios; (4) natural and
human-influenced factors that cause variability in survival and
abundance; (5) possible threats to genetic integrity (e.g., fisheries
and interactions between hatchery and natural fish); and (6) recent
events (e.g., a drought or a change in management) that have
predictable short-term effects on the ESU's abundance. These
considerations and the approaches to evaluating them are described in
more detail in Weitkamp et al. (1995) and have been used by NMFS in
other salmon status reviews. At this time, NMFS believes that an
integrated assessment using these types of information is both
desirable and appropriate for determining whether a Pacific salmon
species is likely to become endangered or extinct.
Issue 2: Description and Status of the Southern Oregon/Northern
California Coast and Oregon Coast Coho Salmon ESUs
Comment: A few commenters disputed NMFS' conclusions regarding the
geographic boundaries for these ESUs; those who did, believed that NMFS
should reduce the size/number of populations that constitute ESUs. One
commenter believed that the Umpqua River basin (in the Oregon Coast
ESU) should be considered a separate ESU and that listing was not
warranted.
Response: The NMFS has published a policy describing how it would
apply the ESA definition of a ``species'' to anadromous salmonid
species (56 FR 58612, November 20, 1991). More recently, NMFS and the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) published a joint policy,
consistent with NMFS' policy, regarding the definition of ``distinct
population segments'' (61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996). The earlier
policy is more detailed and applies specifically to Pacific salmonids
and, therefore, was used for this determination. This policy indicates
that one or more naturally reproducing salmonid populations will be
considered to be distinct and, hence, species under the ESA, if they
represent an ESU of the biological species. To be considered an ESU, a
population must satisfy two criteria: (1) It must be reproductively
isolated from other population units of the same species, and (2) it
must represent an important component in the evolutionary legacy of the
biological species. The first criterion, reproductive isolation, need
not be absolute but must have been strong enough to permit
evolutionarily important differences to occur in different population
units. The second criterion is met if the population contributes
substantially to the ecological or genetic diversity of the species as
a whole. Guidance on applying this policy is contained in a scientific
paper entitled: ``Pacific Salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) and the Definition
of `Species' under the Endangered Species Act.'' It is also found in a
NOAA Technical Memorandum: ``Definition of `Species' Under the
Endangered Species Act: Application to Pacific Salmon.'' NMFS' proposed
listing determination and rule (60 FR 38011, July 25, 1995) for west
coast coho salmon and the west coast coho salmon status review
(Weitkamp et al., 1995) describe the genetic, ecological, and life
history characteristics, as well as human-caused genetic changes, that
NMFS assessed to determine the number and geographic extent of the coho
salmon ESUs.
With respect to the Umpqua River, NMFS recognizes that physical and
hydrological conditions in this basin are unique (i.e., it is by far
the largest basin in the Oregon Coast ESU, and it is the only basin in
the ESU to cut through the Coast Range to drain the Cascade Mountains).
However, NMFS believes that application of the agency's policy
(described above) justifies including Umpqua River coho salmon
populations as an integral part of the Oregon Coast ESU. Ocean
distribution patterns (based on marine recovery locations of fish
tagged with coded wire tags) for coho salmon released from this ESU
(including releases from the Umpqua stocks) are distinctly different
from the distribution patterns for coho salmon released from ESUs to
the north and south. Thus, NMFS concludes that the ocean migration
patterns of the Umpqua stocks are similar to the rest of the stocks in
the ESU. In addition, genetic data that NMFS reviewed (Weitkamp et al.,
1995) indicate that genetic discontinuities are particularly pronounced
at Cape Blanco and the mouth of the Columbia River. While there is
evidence of genetic heterogeneity within this area (e.g., the Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) has identified the Umpqua River
basin as one of six distinct gene conservation groups of coho salmon),
NMFS believes that this ESU, as a whole, which includes the Umpqua
stocks, exhibits a reasonable degree of reproductive isolation from the
other two ESUs that border it.
Comment: Most commenters expressed an opinion as to whether listing
was warranted for these and other coho salmon ESUs, although few
provided substantive new information relevant to making risk
assessments. The majority of comments stated that both ESUs should be
listed as threatened or endangered, while relatively few stated that
listing was not warranted.
Response: Recent Status of the Southern Oregon/Northern California
Coast ESU: The Estimates of natural population abundance in the ESU
continue to be based on very limited information, but the ESU has
clearly undergone a dramatic decline. Favorable indicators include
recent increases in abundance in the Rogue River and the presence of
natural populations in both large and small basins within the ESU--
factors that may provide some buffer against the ESU's extinction.
However, large hatchery programs, particularly in the Klamath/Trinity
basin, raise serious concerns about effects on, and sustainability of,
natural populations. For example, available information indicates that
virtually all of the naturally spawning fish in the Trinity River are
first-generation hatchery fish. Several hatcheries in the California
portion of this ESU have used exotic stocks extensively in the past, in
contrast to Cole Rivers Hatchery in Oregon which has only released
Rogue River stock into the Rogue River. New data relating to coho
salmon presence/absence in northern California streams that
historically supported coho salmon are even more disturbing than
earlier
[[Page 24591]]
results, indicating that a smaller percentage of streams in this ESU
contain coho salmon than did during an earlier study. However, it is
unclear whether these new data represent actual trends in local
extinctions, or if they are simply biased by sampling methods.
In the Rogue River basin, natural spawner abundance in 1996 was
slightly above levels found in 1994 and 1995. Abundances in the most
recent 3 years are all substantially higher than they were in 1989-93,
and are comparable to counts at Gold Ray Dam (upper Rogue) in the
1940s. Estimated return ratios for 1996 are the highest on record, but
this may be influenced by an underestimate of parental spawners. The
Rogue River run included an estimated 60 percent hatchery fish in 1996;
this figure is comparable to the percentages found in recent years. The
majority of these hatchery fish return to Cole Rivers Hatchery, but
NMFS has no estimate of the actual number that stray into natural
habitat.
Response: Recent Status of the Oregon Coast ESU: While this ESU's
current abundance is substantially less than it was historically,
recent trends indicate that spawner escapements in this ESU are stable
or increasing as a likely result of significant harvest restrictions
(or other factors). Although escapement has been increasing for the ESU
as a whole (1996 estimate of ESU-wide escapement indicates an
approximately four-fold increase since 1990), recruitment and recruits-
to-spawner ratios have remained low. While recent natural escapement
has been estimated to be on the order of 50,000 fish per year in this
ESU (reaching approximately 80,000 fish in 1996), this has been
coincident with drastic reductions in harvest. Pre-fishery recruitment
was higher in 1996 than in either 1994 or 1995, but it still exhibits a
relatively flat trend since 1990. When looked at on a finer geographic
scale, the northern Oregon coast still has very poor escapement, the
north-central coast is mixed with strong increases in some streams but
continued poor escapement in others, and the south-central coast
continues to have increasing escapement.
In contrast to most of the 1980s, spawner-to-spawner ratios in this
ESU have remained at or above replacement since 1990 (due primarily to
sharp reductions in harvest). This represents the longest period of
sustained replacement observed in the past 20 years. It is notable that
this sustained replacement has occurred during a period of low
recruitment and primarily poor-to-fair ocean conditions. However,
significant concerns remain regarding the declining trend in this ESU's
productivity.
Issue 3: Factors Contributing to the Decline of West Coast Coho Salmon
ESUs
Comment: Many commenters addressed factors contributing to the
decline of coho salmon. These included overharvest, predation by
pinnipeds, effects of artificial propagation, and the deterioration or
loss of freshwater and marine habitats. One peer reviewer and several
commenters believed that NMFS' assessment did not adequately consider
the large influence of natural environmental fluctuations. Some
commenters took exception to generalizations that NMFS made regarding
the various factors for decline and requested more detail on the
various factors so that recovery efforts could be appropriately
focussed.
Response: NMFS agrees with the commenters that many factors, past
and present, have contributed to the decline of coho salmon. The agency
also recognizes that natural environmental fluctuations have likely
played a large role in the species' recent declines. However, NMFS
believes that other human-induced impacts (e.g., from overharvest,
hatchery practices, and habitat modification) have been equally
significant and, moreover, have likely reduced the coho salmon
populations' resiliency in the face of adverse natural factors such as
drought and poor ocean conditions. Since the time of NMFS' proposed
listing, several documents have been produced that describe in more
detail the impacts of various factors contributing to the decline of
coho and other salmonids (NMFS, 1996a, 1997a, and 1997b; OCSRI 1997).
In addition, NMFS has developed a document titled ``Making Endangered
Species Act Determinations of Effect for Individual or Grouped Actions
at the Watershed Scale'' (NMFS, 1996b). This document presents
guidelines to facilitate and standardize determinations of ``effect''
under the ESA and includes a matrix for determining the condition of
various habitat parameters. This matrix is being implemented in several
northern California and Oregon coastal watersheds and is expected to
help guide efforts to define salmon risk factors and conservation
strategies throughout the west coast. A concise description of
information contained in these documents, as well as new information
provided by commenters, has been incorporated in the section below
titled ``Summary of Factors Affecting Coho Salmon.''
Issue 4: Adequacy of Existing Conservation Measures or Regulatory
Mechanisms
Comment: Many commenters expressed opinions regarding the adequacy
of existing conservation efforts or regulatory mechanisms. While many
thought that existing programs were sufficient to conserve coho salmon
(and hence avoid listing), others believed that efforts were either
inadequate, poorly implemented, or of uncertain benefit to the species.
Response: The regulatory mechanisms established by Federal, state,
tribal, and local governments provide the most effective and available
means to prevent a species from facing the peril of extinction. In its
proposed rule, NMFS concluded that existing measures were not
sufficient to offset population declines. Since that time, several
documents have been produced that describe in more detail the existing
conservation efforts for salmon in Oregon and California (NMFS, 1996a,
1996c, and 1997b; OCSRI, 1997). Moreover, the agency has reviewed a
variety of state and Federal conservation efforts (including regulatory
mechanisms) aimed at protecting coho salmon and their habitats in these
ESUs, and NMFS recognizes that significant conservation efforts have
been made by an array of government agencies and private groups in
California and Oregon. NMFS has also developed a document titled
``Coastal Salmon Conservation: Working Guidance for Comprehensive
Salmon Restoration Initiatives on the Pacific Coast'' (NMFS, 1996d).
This document was drafted to guide the Pacific Coast states, tribes,
and other entities in taking the initiative for coastal salmon
restoration; it also provides a framework for developing successful
salmon restoration strategies. Information that commenters provided
regarding existing regulatory mechanisms has been incorporated in the
sections below titled: ``Summary of Factors Affecting Coho Salmon, and
Efforts to Protect Oregon and California Coho Salmon.''
Issue 5: Information Received After the Close of the Comment Period
Comment: When the states of Oregon and California announced that
they were in the process of developing salmon restoration initiatives
(61 FR 56211, October 31, 1996), it generated considerable interest
among the general public. This was especially true for the OCSRI.
Between the time the August OCSRI draft was released and this Federal
Register document was written, NMFS received a great deal of
[[Page 24592]]
correspondence on this subject. Some of the mail was addressed to NMFS,
but much of it arrived in the form of courtesy copies of mailings sent
to the state. The majority of the comments NMFS received supported the
concept of a state restoration initiative, but they also expressed the
thought that NMFS should still provide the additional protections
afforded by a listing under the ESA.
Response: NMFS has considered this information and thanked as many
of these commenters as time has allowed, and, moreover, appreciates the
input it has received from the many comments that were submitted.
Summary of Factors Affecting Coho Salmon
Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA and NMFS listing regulations (50 CFR
part 424) set forth procedures for listing species. The Secretary of
Commerce (Secretary) must determine, through the regulatory process, if
a species is endangered or threatened based upon any one or a
combination of the following factors: (1) The present or threatened
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (2)
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4) inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (5) other natural or human-made
factors affecting its continued existence.
The factors threatening naturally-reproducing coho salmon
throughout its range are numerous and varied. For coho salmon
populations in California and Oregon, the present depressed condition
is the result of several long-standing, human-induced factors (e.g.,
habitat degradation, harvest, water diversions, and artificial
propagation) that serve to exacerbate the adverse effects of natural
environmental variability from such factors as drought, floods, and
poor ocean conditions.
As noted earlier, NMFS received numerous comments regarding the
relative importance of various factors contributing to the decline of
coho salmon. Several recent documents have been produced that describe
in more detail the impacts of various factors contributing to the
decline of coho and other salmonids (NMFS, 1996a, 1997a, and 1997b;
OCSRI, 1997). The following sections provide an overview of the various
risk factors and their role in the decline of Oregon and California
coho salmon.
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of its Habitat or Range
NMFS, in conjunction with the State of Oregon, identified the
habitat factors for decline that have affected coho salmon. The factors
are: Channel morphology changes, substrate changes, loss of instream
roughness, loss of estuarine habitat, loss of wetlands, loss/
degradation of riparian areas, declines in water quality (e.g.,
elevated water temperatures, reduced dissolved oxygen, altered
biological communities, toxics, elevated pH, and altered stream
fertility), altered streamflows, fish passage impediments, elimination
of habitat, and direct take. Additional detail on each of these factors
for decline can be found in reports by NMFS (NMFS, 1996a, 1997a, and
1997b) and the State of Oregon (OCSRI, 1997).
The major activities responsible for the decline of coho salmon in
Oregon and California are logging, road building, grazing and mining
activities, urbanization, stream channelization, dams, wetland loss,
beaver trapping, water withdrawals and unscreened diversions for
irrigation. Many commenters expressed concern that these and other
habitat-related activities, if unchecked, could ultimately lead to the
ESUs' becoming endangered or extinct. The following discussion provides
an overview of the types of activities and conditions that adversely
affect coho salmon in coastal watersheds.
Numerous studies have demonstrated that land use activities
associated with logging, road construction, urban development, mining,
agriculture, and recreation have significantly altered the quantity and
quality of coho salmon habitat. Impacts of concern associated with
these activities include the following: Alteration of streambank and
channel morphology, alteration of ambient stream water temperatures,
alteration of the magnitude and timing of annual stream flow patterns,
elimination of spawning and rearing habitat, fragmentation of available
habitats, elimination of downstream recruitment of spawning gravels and
large woody debris, removal of riparian vegetation resulting in
increased stream bank erosion, and degradation of water quality (CDFG,
1965; Bottom et al., 1985; California Advisory Committee on Salmon and
Steelhead Trout, 1988; CDFG, 1991; Nehlsen et al., 1991; California
State Lands Commission, 1993; Wilderness Society, 1993; Bryant, 1994;
CDFG, 1994; Brown et al., 1994; Botkin et al., 1995; McEwan and
Jackson, 1996). Of particular concern is the increased sediment input
into spawning and rearing areas that results from loss of properly
functioning riparian areas, land management activities that occur on
unstable slopes, and certain agricultural practices. Further,
historical practices, such as the use of splash dams, widespread
removal of log jams, removal of snags from river channels, and
eradication of beaver have adversely modified fish habitat (Bottom et
al., 1985).
Agricultural practices have also contributed to the degradation of
salmonid habitat on the west coast through irrigation diversions,
overgrazing in riparian areas, and compaction of soils in upland areas
from livestock (Botkin et al., 1995; Spence et al., 1996). The vigor,
composition, and diversity of natural vegetation can be altered by
livestock grazing in and around riparian areas. This in turn can affect
the site's ability to control erosion, provide stability to stream
banks, and provide shade, cover, and nutrients to the stream.
Mechanical compaction can reduce the productivity of the soils
appreciably and cause bank slough and erosion. Mechanical bank damage
often leads to channel widening, lateral stream migration, increases in
water temperature, and excess sedimentation. Agricultural practices are
also a key producer of non-point source pollution which includes runoff
from livestock and tilled fields (nutrients and sediments) and
agricultural chemicals.
Urbanization has degraded coho salmon habitat through stream
channelization, floodplain drainage, and riparian damage (Botkin et
al., 1995). When watersheds are urbanized, problems may result simply
because structures are placed in the path of natural runoff processes,
or because the urbanization itself has induced changes in the
hydrologic regime. In almost every point that urbanization activity
touches the watershed, point source and nonpoint source pollution
occurs. Water infiltration is reduced due to an increase in impervious
surfaces. As a result, runoff from the watershed is flashier, with
increased flood hazard (Leopold, 1968). Flood control and land drainage
schemes may concentrate runoff, resulting in increased bank erosion
which causes a loss of riparian vegetation and undercut banks and
eventually causes widening and down-cutting of the stream channel.
Sediments washed from the urban areas contain trace metals such as
copper, cadmium, zinc, and lead (CSLC, 1993). These, together with
pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, gasoline, and
[[Page 24593]]
other petroleum products, contaminate drainage waters and harm aquatic
life necessary for coho salmon survival. The California State Water
Resources Control Board (CSWRCB, 1991) reported that nonpoint source
pollution is the cause of 50 to 80 percent of impairment to water
bodies in California.
Forestry has degraded coho salmon habitat through removal and
disturbance of natural vegetation, disturbance and compaction of soils,
construction of roads, and installation of culverts. Timber harvest
activities can result in sediment delivered to streams through mass
wasting and surface erosion that can elevate the level of fine
sediments in spawning gravels and fill the substrate interstices
inhabited by invertebrates. Where logging in the riparian areas occurs,
inputs of leaf litter, terrestrial insects, and large woody debris to
the stream are reduced. Loss of large woody debris, combined with
alteration of hydrology and sediment transport, reduces complexity of
stream micro-and macrohabitats and causes loss of pools and channel
sinuosity. The structure of the biological community may also change.
This includes fish assemblages and diversity as well as timing of life
history events (Spence et al., 1996).
Depletion and storage of natural flows have drastically altered
natural hydrological cycles, especially in California and southern
Oregon rivers and streams. Alteration of streamflows has increased
juvenile salmonid mortality for a variety of reasons: Migration delay
resulting from insufficient flows or habitat blockages; loss of usable
habitat due to dewatering and blockage; stranding of fish resulting
from rapid flow fluctuations; entrainment of juveniles into unscreened
or poorly screened diversions; and increased juvenile mortality
resulting from increased water temperatures (California Advisory
Committee on Salmon and Steelhead Trout, 1988; CDFG, 1991; CBFWA, 1991;
Bergren and Filardo, 1991; Palmisano et al., 1993; Reynolds et al.,
1993; Chapman et al., 1994; Cramer et al., 1995; Botkin et al., 1995).
In addition, reduced flows degrade or diminish fish habitats via
increased deposition of fine sediments in spawning gravels, decreased
recruitment of new spawning gravels, and encroachment of riparian and
non-endemic vegetation into spawning and rearing areas.
Important elements of water quality include water temperatures
within the range that corresponds with migration, rearing and emergence
needs of fish and the aquatic organisms upon which they depend (Sweeney
and Vannote, 1978; Quinn and Tallman, 1987). Desired conditions for
coho salmon include an abundance of cool (generally in the range of
11.8 degrees C to 14.6 degrees C), well oxygenated water that is
present year-round, free of excessive suspended sediments and other
pollutants that could limit primary production and benthic invertebrate
abundance and diversity (Cordone and Kelley, 1961; Reiser and Bjornn,
1979; Lloyd et al., 1987).
There are approximately 18,137 miles (30,228 km) of streams in the
coastal basins of Oregon. Of that number, 6,086 stream miles (10,143
km) (33.5 percent) have been assessed by Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ) for compliance with existing water quality
standards using available water quality information. Of the 6,086
stream miles assessed (10,143 km), 3,035 stream miles (5,058 km) (49.9
percent) were found to be water quality limited, and 2,345 stream miles
(3,908 km)(38.5 percent) need additional data or were of potential
concern. Only 706 stream miles (1,177 km)(11.6 percent) of those
assessed were found to be meeting all state water quality standards
(OCSRI, 1997).
Eighteen water bodies in northern California, including eight
within the range of the Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast ESU,
have been designated as impaired by the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) under section 303(d) of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA). These
eight river basins include the Mattole, Eel, Van Duzen, Mad, Shasta,
Scott, Klamath, and Trinity Rivers. The primary factors for listing
these river basins as impaired are excessive sediment load and elevated
water temperatures.
Although individual management activities by themselves may not
cause significant harm to salmonid habitats, incrementally and
collectively, they may degrade habitat and cause long-term declines in
fish abundance (Bisson et al., 1992). Changes in sediment dynamics,
streamflow, and water temperature are not just local problems
restricted to a particular reach of a stream, but problems that can
have adverse cumulative effects throughout the entire downstream basin
(Sedell and Swanson, 1984; Grant, 1988). For example, increased erosion
in headwaters, combined with reduced sediment storage capacity in small
streams, from loss of stable instream large woody debris (LWD), can
overwhelm larger streams with sediment (Bisson et al., 1992). Likewise,
increased water temperature in headwater streams may not harm salmonids
there but can contribute to downstream warming (Bisson et al., 1987;
Bjornn and Reiser, 1991).
The most pervasive cumulative effect of past forest practices on
habitats for anadromous salmonids has been an overall reduction in
habitat complexity (Bisson et al., 1992), from loss of multiple habitat
components. Habitat complexity has declined principally because of
reduced size and frequency of pools due to filling with sediment and
loss of LWD (Reeves et al., 1993; Ralph et al., 1994). However, there
has also been a significant loss of off-channel rearing habitats (e.g.,
side channels, riverine ponds, backwater sloughs) important for
juvenile salmon production, particularly coho salmon (Peterson, 1982).
Cumulative habitat simplification has caused a widespread reduction in
salmonid diversity throughout California, Oregon, and the region.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Education Purposes
Coho salmon have historically been a staple of Pacific Northwest
and northern California Indian tribes and have been targeted in
recreational and commercial fisheries since the early 1800s (Nickelson
et al., 1992). Coho salmon harvested by California Native American
tribes in the northern California portion of the Southern Oregon/
Northern California Coast ESU is primarily incidental to larger chinook
salmon subsistence fisheries in the Klamath and Trinity Rivers; in
neither basin is tribal harvest considered to be a major factor for the
decline of coho salmon. The recent estimated Yurok tribal net harvest
of coho salmon in the Klamath River was 27 in 1994, 660 in 1995, and
540 in 1996. The Yurok tribal fishery is managed annually under a
Harvest Management Plan adopted by the Tribal Council pursuant to the
authority of the Yurok Tribal Fishing Rights Ordinance. The Hoopa
Tribe's estimated net harvest of coho salmon from 1982-96 averaged 263
fish per year and ranged from a low of 25 fish in 1994 to a high of
1,115 fish in 1985. Harvest management practiced by the tribes is
conservative and has resulted in limited impacts on the coho salmon
stocks in the Klamath and Trinity Rivers.
Overfishing in non-tribal fisheries is believed to have been a
significant factor in the decline of coho salmon. Marine harvest in the
Oregon Coast and Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast ESUs occurs
primarily in nearshore waters off Oregon, and California (Weitkamp et
al., 1995). Coho
[[Page 24594]]
salmon landings off the California and Oregon coast ranged from 0.7 to
3.0 million in the 1970s, were consistently below 1 million in the
1980s, and averaged less than 0.4 million in the early 1990s prior to
closure of the fisheries in 1994 (PFMC, 1995).
Significant overfishing occurred from the time marine survival
turned poor for many stocks (ca. 1976) until the mid-1990s when harvest
was substantially curtailed. This overfishing compromised escapement
levels. Spawning escapement targets established for the Oregon Coastal
Natural (OCN) coast wide aggregate (comprised of all naturally produced
coho salmon from Oregon coastal streams) were rarely met over the past
2 decades. There are many reasons that escapement targets were not met,
including excessive harvests and difficulty in estimating the maximum
sustainable yield given extreme fluctuations in ocean productivity and
the inability to properly distinguish wild spawners from stray hatchery
fish.
Coho salmon stocks are managed by NMFS in conjunction with the
Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC), the states, and certain
tribes. Coho salmon ocean harvest is managed by setting escapement
goals for OCN coho salmon. This stock aggregate constitutes the largest
portion of naturally-produced coho salmon caught in ocean salmon
fisheries off California and Oregon (PFMC, 1993). The PFMC prohibited
the retention of coho salmon in both the commercial and recreational
salmon fisheries along the entire west coast in 1994. A similar action
prohibiting the retention of coho salmon in all salmon fisheries south
of Cape Falcon (on the northern Oregon coast) was implemented in 1995.
These actions were taken because of the depressed status of Oregon and
California coastal coho salmon stocks in 1994 and 1995 and are believed
to have immediately benefitted these stocks by increasing escapement.
New OCN coho salmon adult spawner escapement rebuilding criteria
and associated fishery management strategy for OCN are currently being
proposed by Oregon to the PFMC and NMFS and are described in more
detail in the OCSRI (1997). Key provisions of this management strategy
include: (1) Disaggregation of OCN stock into four components for
better management of weaker stock units; (2) setting new adult spawner
escapement rebuilding criteria for each component derived from a model
based on freshwater habitat assessment and production capability; and
(3) establishing future coho salmon fishery-related exploitation rates
under a more restrictive fishery management regime that allocates most
of future population increases to escapement.
Recreational fishing for coho salmon is pursued in numerous streams
throughout the Oregon and California coast when adults return on their
fall spawning migration. The contribution of coho salmon to the in-
river sport catch is unknown for most California watersheds, and losses
due to injury and mortality from incidental capture in other authorized
fisheries, principally steelhead, are also unknown. The California
Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) has monitored, with Trinity River
Basin Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act funding, angler harvest of coho
salmon in the Trinity River above Willow Creek with reward tags since
1977. In-river angler harvest estimates for coho salmon range from zero
in 1980 to a high of 3,368 in 1987, with an average of 598 coho salmon
harvested per year.
In the Oregon portion of the Southern Oregon/Northern California
Coast ESU, marked hatchery coho salmon are allowed to be harvested in
the Rogue River. All other recreational coho salmon fisheries in the
Oregon portion of this ESU are closed. In the Oregon Coast ESU,
recreational fisheries for coho salmon are limited to three rivers:
North Fork Nehalem River (primarily a hatchery run), Trask River, and
Yaquina River. Regulations for the latter two rivers allow only marked
hatchery fish to be kept. With the marking of all hatchery fish, the
Nehalem River recreational fishery will also be limited to harvest of
marked hatchery coho salmon in the near future.
Collection for scientific research and educational programs is
believed to have had little or no impact on coho salmon populations in
these ESUs. In both California and Oregon, most of the scientific
collection permits are issued to environmental consultants, Federal
resource agencies, and universities by the CDFG and the ODFW.
Regulation of take is controlled by conditioning individual permits.
The state fish and wildlife agencies require reporting of any coho
salmon taken incidentally to other monitoring activities; however, no
comprehensive total or estimate of coho salmon mortalities related to
scientific sampling is kept for watersheds in either state. Neither
CDFG (F. Reynolds, pers. comm.) nor ODFW (R. Temple, pers. comm.)
believe that mortalities, as regulated by the states' permitting
processes, are detrimental to coho salmon in California and Oregon.
C. Disease or Predation
Relative to effects of fishing, habitat degradation, and hatchery
practices, disease and predation are not believed to be major factors
contributing to the overall decline of coho salmon in California and
Oregon. However, disease and predation may have substantial impacts in
local areas.
Coho salmon are exposed to numerous bacterial, protozoan, viral,
and parasitic pathogens in freshwater and marine environments. Specific
diseases such as bacterial kidney disease (BKD), ceratomyxosis,
columnaris, furunculosis, infectious hematopoietic necrosis, redmouth
and black spot disease, Erythrocytic Inclusion Body Syndrome, whirling
disease, and others are present and known to affect salmon and
steelhead (Rucker et al., 1953; Wood, 1979; Leek, 1987; Cox, 1992;
Foott et al., 1994; Gould and Wedemeyer, undated). Very little current
or historical information exists to quantify prevalences and mortality
rates attributable to these diseases for coho salmon. However, studies
have shown that native fish tend to be less susceptible to these
pathogens than hatchery-reared fish (Buchanon et al., 1983; Sanders et
al., 1992).
Infectious disease is one of many factors that can influence adult
and juvenile survival (Buchanan et al., 1983). Disease may be
contracted by direct infection with waterborne pathogens or by
interbreeding with infected hatchery fish (Fryer and Sanders, 1981;
Evelyn et al., 1984 and 1986). Salmonids typically are exposed to a
variety of pathogens throughout their life; however, disease results
only when the complex interaction among host, pathogen, and environment
is altered.
Many natural and hatchery coho salmon populations throughout
California's coast have tested positive for Renibacterium salmoninarum,
the causative bacterium of BKD (Cox, 1992; Foott, 1992). For example,
in the Central California Coast ESU, the overall prevalence of BKD
measured by direct fluorescent antibody technique among Scott Creek
coho salmon was 100 percent (13/13 fish) and 95.5 percent (21/22 fish)
among San Lorenzo River coho salmon (Cox, 1992). The CDFG recently
initiated a treatment protocol to attempt to control BKD outbreaks in
hatchery fish released into the Russian River and Scott Creek (Cox,
1992). The impacts of this disease are subtle. Juvenile salmonids may
survive well in their journey downstream but may be unable to make
appropriate changes in kidney function for a successful
[[Page 24595]]
transition to sea water (Foott, 1992). Stress during migration may also
cause overt disease (Schreck, 1987). Water quantity and quality during
late summer is a critical factor in controlling disease epidemics. As
water quantity and quality diminishes, stress may trigger the onset of
these diseases in fish that are carrying the infectious agents (Holt et
al., 1975; Wood, 1979; Matthews et al., 1986; Maule et al., 1988).
Freshwater predation by salmonids and other fishes is not believed
to be a major factor contributing to the decline of coho salmon in the
Oregon Coast and Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast ESUs,
although it could be a factor for some individual populations. For
example, predation by exotic warmwater fish is believed to be a major
factor limiting the production in Tenmile Lake, formerly one of the
largest producers of coho salmon along the Oregon coast (Reimers,
1989). Higgins et al. (1992) and CDFG (1994) reported that Sacramento
River squawfish have been found occupying anadromous salmonid habitat
throughout the Eel River basin and are considered to be a serious
threat to native coho salmon. Avian predators have been shown to impact
some juvenile salmonids in freshwater and nearshore environments.
Ruggerone (1986) estimated that ring-billed gulls consumed 2 percent of
the salmon and steelhead trout passing Wanapum Dam, in the Columbia
River, during the spring smolt outmigration in 1982. Wood (1987)
estimated that the common merganser, a known freshwater predator of
juvenile salmonids, were able to consume 24 to 65 percent of coho
salmon production in coastal British Columbia streams. Known avian
predators in the nearshore marine environment include herons,
cormorants, and alcids (Allen, 1974). Cooper and Johnson (1992) and
Botkin et al. (1995) reported that marine mammal and avian predation
may occur on some local salmonid populations; however, they believed
that it was a minor factor in the decline of coastwide salmonid
populations. With the decrease in quality riverine and estuarine
habitats, increased predation by freshwater, avian, and marine
predators will occur. With the decrease in avoidance habitat (e.g.,
deep pools and estuaries, and undercut banks) and adequate migration
and rearing flows, predation may play a role in the reduction of some
localized coho salmon stocks.
California sea lions and Pacific harbor seals (which occur in most
estuaries and rivers where salmonid runs occur on the west coast) are
known predators of salmonids and their populations are increasing. This
raises concerns over the negative impacts of predation on small
salmonid populations, particularly when the pinnipeds co-occur with
depressed salmonid populations in estuaries and rivers during salmonid
migrations (NMFS, 1997c). The observations of steelhead predation by
California sea lions at the Ballard Locks in Seattle, WA, show that a
significant proportion (65 percent) of an entire salmonid run can be
consumed by sea lions (Scordino and Pfeifer, 1993) and this clearly
demonstrates that the combination of high local predator abundance
during salmonid migrations, restricted passage, and depressed fish
stocks can result in significant impacts on local salmonid populations
(NMFS, 1997c). Unfortunately, there are only a few areas on the west
coast, other than the Ballard Locks, where studies have documented the
influence of pinniped predation on local salmonid populations. In the
Puntledge River estuary in British Columbia, Bigg et al. (1990)
observed Pacific harbor seals surface feeding on salmonids and
documented predation rates of up to 46 percent of the returning adult
fall chinook. In the same river, observations of harbor seal predation
on coho salmon smolts in 1995 indicated that the seals consumed 15
percent of the total production. Predation on coho salmon has also been
observed at the Ballard Locks with a single California sea lion
documented to have consumed 136 coho salmon in 62 hours (2.1 coho
salmon per hour) (NMFS, 1997c). Although there have been no specific
studies in any coastal estuary on the west coast on impacts of pinniped
predation, it is known that pinniped foraging on coho salmon can be
extensive based on ancillary information from hatcheries that have
documented pinniped scarring on 11-20 percent of the returning coho
salmon (NMFS, 1997c).
In many of the small coastal rivers and streams in southern Oregon
and northern California, there is a situation that makes returning
adult coho salmon and winter steelhead more vulnerable to pinniped
predation than larger systems (NMFS, 1997c). In low rainfall years, or
when rain arrives late in the winter season, small coastal rivers do
not flow with sufficient volume to open the beach crest and flow into
the sea. Low tide periods also create or compound this condition in
low-flowing small rivers and streams. During such periods, adult fish
arrive and accumulate in nearshore waters just offshore of the closed-
off river mouth. The adult salmonids are then exposed to days or weeks
of pinniped predation at these sites until sufficient rainfall occurs
or higher tides allow access to the river or stream. During successive
years of drought, the situation is exacerbated because the river mouths
are open only intermittently during the salmonid spawning season.
Downstream migrating smolts also become more vulnerable to pinniped and
bird predation in these conditions as they congregate in the lagoons
formed near the river mouth until it opens up to the sea.
It is unlikely that pinniped predation was a significant factor in
the decline of coho salmon populations on the west coast; there have
been no specific studies that demonstrate a cause-effect relationship
between increases in pinniped numbers and declines in salmonid
populations. However, with reduced salmonid populations and increased
pinniped populations, pinniped predation can be a factor affecting the
recovery of some salmonid populations. Pinniped predation on small
salmonid populations, especially at areas of restricted fish passage,
can have negative impacts on the recovery of depressed salmonids.
Seasonal predation by pinnipeds on some salmonid populations has been
observed, and a significant negative impact on at least one salmonid
population has been documented (i.e., winter steelhead migrating
through the Ballard Locks). Pinniped impacts on salmonids are more
likely due to opportunistic behavior by certain individual pinnipeds
that have learned to exploit situations where salmonids are
concentrated and particularly vulnerable rather than being strictly
related to pinniped population size. As the number of pinnipeds
increases, however, the likelihood of more pinnipeds discovering these
situations increases, as does the opportunity to pass on such learned
behavior to other pinnipeds.
All in all, the relative impacts of marine predation on anadromous
salmonids are not well understood, but marine predation was not likely
a major factor in the coho salmon decline, although it can be a factor
in the recovery of some localized coho salmon stocks. Normally,
predators play an important role in the ecosystem, culling out unfit
individuals, thereby strengthening the species as a whole. The
increased impact of certain predators has been, to a large degree, the
result of ecosystem modification. Therefore, it would seem more likely
that increased predation is but a symptom of a much larger problem,
[[Page 24596]]
namely, habitat modification and a decrease in water quantity and
quality.
D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Habitat Management
1. Northwest Forest Plan (NFP). The NFP is a Federal program with
important benefits for coho salmon, as described below (see Federal
Conservation Efforts). While the NFP covers a very large area, the
overall effectiveness of the NFP in conserving Oregon and California
coho salmon is limited by the extent of Federal lands and the fact that
Federal land ownership is not uniformly distributed in watersheds
within the affected ESUs. In some areas, Federal lands tend to be
located in the upper reaches of watersheds or river basins, upstream of
lower gradient river reaches that were historically important for coho
salmon production. In other areas, particularly Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) ownership, Federal lands are distributed in a
checkerboard fashion, resulting in fragmented landscapes. Both of these
Federal land distribution factors place constraints on the ability of
the NFP to achieve its aquatic habitat restoration objectives at
watershed and river basin scales and highlight the importance of
complementary salmon habitat conservation measures on non-Federal lands
within the subject ESUs.
2. State Forest Practices. The California Department of Forestry
and Fire Protection (CDF) enforces the State of California's forest
practice rules (CFPRs) which are promulgated through the Board of
Forestry (BOF). The CFPRs contain provisions that can be protective of
coho salmon if fully implemented. However, NMFS believes that the
ability of the CFPRs to protect coho salmon can be improved,
particularly in the area of developing properly functioning riparian
habitat. For this reason, NMFS is attempting to improve the condition
of riparian buffers in ongoing habitat conservation plan negotiations
with private landowners. Specifically, the CFPRs do not adequately
address large woody debris recruitment, streamside tree retention to
maintain bank stability, and canopy retention standards that assure
stream temperatures are properly functioning for all life stages of
coho salmon. The current process for approving Timber Harvest Plans
(THPs) under the CFPRs does not include monitoring of timber harvest
operations to determine whether a particular operation damaged habitat
and, if so, how it might be mitigated in future THPs. The CFPR rule
that permits salvage logging is also an area where better environmental
review and monitoring could provide NMFS with the information to
determine whether this practice impacts coho salmon.
There have been several reviews of the current CFPRs and
particularly the rules associated with the Water/lake Protection Zones
(WLPZs) for their adequacy in protecting aquatic dependent species such
as coho salmon. Most reviews have shown that implementation and
enforcement of the current rules are not adequate in protecting coho
salmon or their habitats (CDFG, 1994; Murphy, 1995). NMFS' inability to
assess the adequacy of the CFPRs is primarily due to the lack of
published documentation that the CFPRs are functioning to protect coho
salmon. NMFS is currently reviewing the CFPRs so that discussions can
be opened with CDF to determine where improvements in the language and
definition of the CFPRs would be beneficial.
The CDF has recently proposed 15 amendments to the CFPRs that would
become effective on January 1, 1998, if approved by the BOF. The
proposed changes are a positive sign that CDF recognizes the need to
provide a higher level of protection to stream side zones, provide for
additional control of sediment inputs from road construction and
harvest operations, and clarify conditions for exemptions in stream
zones. However, the adoption of the proposed changes to the CFPRs is
uncertain at this time.
The BOF's Monitoring Study Group (MSG) has developed a Long-Term
Monitoring Program (LTMP) for assessing the effectiveness of the CFPRs
in protecting water quality. The MSG recently published a report on its
Pilot Monitoring Program for the LTMP (January, 1997) which evaluated
canopy retention in 50 randomly selected THPs in Mendocino and Humboldt
Counties. The Pilot Study found that canopy retention was higher (70
percent) in the THPs which were evaluated than the minimum required by
the CFPRs (50 percent).
The Oregon Forest Practices Act (OFPA), while modified in 1995 and
improved over the previous OFPA, does not have implementing rules that
adequately protect coho salmon habitat. In particular, the current OFPA
does not provide adequate protection for the production and
introduction of large woody debris (LWD) to medium, small and non-fish
bearing streams. Small non-fish bearing streams are vitally important
to the quality of downstream habitats. These streams carry water,
sediment, nutrients, and LWD from upper portions of the watershed. The
quality of downstream habitats is determined, in part, by the timing
and amount of organic and inorganic materials provided by these small
streams (Chamberlin et al. in Meehan, 1991). Given the existing
depleted condition of most riparian forests on non-Federal lands, the
time needed to attain mature forest conditions, the lack of adequate
protection for non-riparian LWD sources in landslide-prone areas and
small headwater streams (which account for about half the wood found
naturally in stream channels) (Burnett and Reeves, 1997, citing Van
Sickle and Gregory, 1990; McDade et al., 1990; and McGreary, 1994), and
current rotation schedules (approximately 50 years), there is a low
probability that adequate LWD recruitment could be achieved under the
current requirements of the OFPA. Also, the OFPA does not adequately
consider and manage timber harvest and road construction on sensitive,
unstable slopes subject to mass wasting, nor does it address cumulative
effects.
3. Dredge, Fill, and Inwater Construction Programs. The Army Corps
of Engineers (COE) regulates removal/fill activities under section 404
of the CWA, which requires that the COE not permit a discharge that
would ``cause or contribute to significant degradation of the waters of
the United States.'' One of the factors that must be considered in this
determination is cumulative effects. However, the COE guidelines do not
specify a methodology to be used in assessing cumulative impacts or how
much weight to assign them in decision-making. In 1996 the Portland
District Office of the COE issued approximately 250 section 404 permits
for removal/fill in Oregon. The COE does not have in place any process
to address the additive effects of the continued development of
waterfront, riverine, coastal, and wetland properties.
The Oregon Division of State Lands (DSL) manages the state-
permitted portion of the removal fill laws. Oregon intends to halt
habitat degradation through the development of standardized permit
conditions incorporating best management practices for Removal-Fill
activities and through strengthening interagency coordination in
Removal-Fill permitting. The DSL also does not currently have methods
to assess, analyze, or manage cumulative effects.
4. Water Quality Programs. The Federal CWA is intended to provide
for the protection of beneficial uses, including fishery resources. To
date, implementation has not been effective
[[Page 24597]]
in adequately protecting fishery resources, particularly with respect
to non-point sources of pollution. In Oregon, water quality standards
are implemented by the DEQ pursuant to section 303(c) of the CWA. DEQ
is required by section 303(d)(1) (C) and (D) of the CWA to prepare
Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for all water bodies that do not meet
State water quality standards.
TMDLs are a method for quantitative assessment of environmental
problems in a watershed and identifying pollution reductions needed to
protect drinking water, aquatic life, recreation, and other use of
rivers, lakes, and streams. TMDLs may address all pollution sources,
including point sources such as sewage or industrial plant discharges,
and non-point discharges such as runoff from roads, farm fields, and
forests. The CWA gives state governments the primary responsibility for
establishing TMDLs, however, EPA can also develop them.
Oregon DEQ entered into a consent decree in 1987 to develop at
least two TMDLs per year. The Healthy Streams Partnership describes a
general approach to address non-point source water quality problems in
Oregon, particularly with respect to agricultural activities. If
Oregon's Healthy Streams Partnership is fully funded, DEQ expects to
complete all TMDLs for all impaired coastal watersheds within 10 years.
Oregon's guidance for non-point source TMDLs includes an implementation
component that is lacking in prior non-point source TMDLs nationwide.
Since the beneficial use of salmonid fishes is most often affected by
the largely non-point source sediment and temperature impairments, this
advance in non-point source TMDLs may be important. The development of
strong TMDLs to cover all water quality impaired coastal waters could
contribute substantially to coho salmon recovery.
The CWA gives state governments the primary responsibility for
establishing TMDLs. However, EPA is required to do so if a state does
not meet this responsibility. In California, as a result of recent
litigation, the EPA has made a legal commitment guaranteeing that
either EPA or the State of California will establish TMDLs, which
identify pollution reduction targets, for these 18 impaired river
basins in northern California by the year 2007. The State of California
has made a commitment to establish TMDLs for approximately half the 18
river basins by 2007. The EPA will develop TMDLs for the remaining
basins and has also agreed to complete all TMDLS if the state fails to
meet its commitment within the agreed upon time frame.
The ability of these TMDLs to protect coho salmon in Oregon and
California is expected to be significant in the long-term; however, it
will be difficult to develop them quickly in the short-term and their
efficacy in protecting coho salmon habitat will be unknown for years to
come.
5. State Agricultural Practices. Historically, the impacts to fish
habitat from agricultural practices have not been closely regulated.
The Oregon Department of Agriculture has recently completed guidance
for development of agricultural water quality management plans (AWQMPs)
(as enacted by State Senate Bill 1010). Plans that are consistent with
this guidance are likely to achieve state water quality standards. It
is open to question, however, whether they will adequately address
salmonid habitat factors, such as properly functioning riparian
conditions. Their ability to address all relevant factors will depend
on the manner in which they are implemented. AWQMPs are anticipated to
be developed at a basin scale, so the entirety of coastal Oregon may be
covered. AWQMPs include regulatory authority and enforcement
provisions. The Healthy Streams Partnership schedules adoption of
AWQMPs for all impaired waters by 2001.
6. State Urban Growth Management. On lands inside Oregon's urban
growth boundaries, some upgraded riparian area protection will be
afforded by the newly revised requirements for statewide planning Goal
5. Local governments will amend their local comprehensive plans to
implement these new requirements. Unfortunately, Goal 5 does not
require establishment and protection of riparian vegetation to provide
adequate large woody debris and allows limited road building in
riparian areas.
Harvest Management
Harvest of coho salmon in Federal waters off the west coast is
managed by the PFMC and NMFS. Harvest of California and Oregon coastal
coho salmon has been managed based on achieving adequate escapement of
OCN coho salmon. Despite annual management and use of best available
scientific information, spawning escapements have declined
significantly over the past 20 years. Prior to 1994, harvest rates on
OCN coho salmon were too high for the poor ocean conditions that are
now realized to have been occurring. Further, declining numbers of
natural spawning fish were masked by high stray rates of hatchery fish.
Since 1994, the PFMC has recommended harvest rates of 10-13 percent
even though regulations allowed up to a 20 percent harvest rate during
the same time period. Since 1994, the PFMC also has recommended
prohibiting the retention of coho salmon south of Cape Falcon, OR,
which has resulted in relatively low levels of incidental mortality.
Oregon also has begun marking all hatchery fish so that natural
escapements can be more accurately quantified. Oregon has proposed that
the PFMC amend its ocean fisheries regulations to adopt the OCSRI
harvest framework.
Fisheries management of coho salmon in Oregon state waters inside
the 3-mile (5 km) limit historically had similar problems and
contributed to the overall decline. In more recent years, however,
state angling regulations have required the release of all naturally-
produced coho salmon in the Oregon portion of the Southern Oregon/
Northern California Coast ESU. The harvest measures and associated
monitoring plan in the OCSRI will provide a significantly better
framework from which PFMC and Oregon will manage their coho salmon
fisheries.
Oregon currently manages several populations of non-indigenous fish
species (e.g., striped, largemouth, and smallmouth bass) for optimal
recreational fisheries. These fish were in many cases introduced into
Oregon waters in violation of Oregon law. Scientists have documented
that at least in some circumstances, the presence of these non-
indigenous species has reduced or eliminated coho salmon populations
(OCSRI 1997). The ongoing management applied to these exotic fish
species, in certain locales, may not be consistent with the goals of
the ESA. The OCSRI contains provisions to review the science and
management direction pertinent to the interaction of non-indigenous
fish species and coastal coho salmon. Results of this review will guide
NMFS and Oregon in the future management or actions addressing
interactions of these species with coho salmon.
The State of California has jurisdiction over ocean salmon fishing
within 3 miles (5 km) of the coast offshore California. Subsequent to
NMFS's implementation of ocean salmon harvest regulations for the
Exclusive Economic Zone, the California Fish and Game Commission (CFGC)
and CDFG, respectively, conform the State's ocean salmon regulations
for commercial and sportfishing within the 3-mile (5 km) limit to those
adopted by NMFS. In most years the CFGC and CDFG issue
[[Page 24598]]
regulations that conform fully with Federal ocean salmon regulation.
The CFGC is also responsible for issuing in-river sportfishing
regulations in California. At present, the state's sportfishing
regulations continue to allow fishing for coho salmon in the inland
waters of the Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast ESU, and the
Commission has not proposed to take action in the event the ESU is
listed under the Federal ESA.
The contribution of coho salmon to the in-river sport catch is
unknown for most California watersheds, as are losses due to injury and
mortality from incidental capture in other state-authorized fisheries
such as steelhead. However, the CDFG has conducted limited in-river
monitoring of coho salmon harvest by anglers in the Trinity River above
Willow Creek since 1977, and estimates that in-river angler harvest for
coho salmon in this reach of the Trinity River has averaged 598 coho
salmon harvested per year. Current state funding and personnel
resources are not available to implement comprehensive monitoring
programs to evaluate the magnitude of in-river harvest impacts in
California.
Hatchery Management
Oregon has adopted a Wild Fish Policy that guides many aspects of
hatchery use, their broodstock protocols, and the degree of interaction
between hatchery and wild fish. This policy has improved many hatchery
operations throughout Oregon with respect to the protection of wild
fish populations and their genetic diversity. However, full and prompt
implementation of the policy has not occurred and Oregon continues to
make program adjustments to achieve fish management consistent with the
purposes of the policy and the Federal ESA.
One provision of the Wild Fish Policy is that hatcheries using
local broodstock and managed according to specific protocols can
contribute up to 50 percent of the number of fish spawning in the
natural habitat. NMFS believes this 50 percent guideline can be
appropriate when the hatchery fish are part of a recovery program
needed to boost an at-risk population. However, current scientific
information indicates that it is not appropriate in hatchery programs
intended to enhance populations for the purposes of increased harvest.
Consequently discussions between NMFS and ODFW have resulted in the
OCSRI including a measure to manage coho salmon hatchery and harvest
programs so that natural spawning populations contain no more than 10
percent hatchery strays.
In California, the CDFG directly operates artificial propagation
programs for coho salmon at three hatcheries in the Southern Oregon/
Northern California Coast ESU. These include Iron Gate Hatchery,
Trinity River Hatchery, and the Mad River Hatchery. The CDFG has
recently developed production goals and constraints for both the Iron
Gate and Trinity River Hatchery programs (CDFG, 1997a). Both hatcheries
now operate under goals and constraints which specify use of adults
returning to the hatcheries and prohibits use of stocks from other
drainages for spawning and rearing. Transfer of production to outside
drainages is generally prohibited, but can occur under some
circumstances. Additional privately-owned and operated hatchery
programs for coho salmon are conducted in Rowdy Creek (Rowdy Creek
Hatchery), the Eel River (Hollow Tree Creek Hatchery), and in the
Mattole River. Other smaller programs that are not currently
propagating coho salmon are in Freshwater Creek and Prairie Creek.
In the past, non-native coho salmon stocks have been introduced as
broodstock in hatcheries and widely transplanted in many coastal rivers
and streams in the California portion of the Southern Oregon/Northern
California Coast ESU (Weitkamp et al., 1995). Because of problems
associated with this practice, CDFG developed its Salmon and Steelhead
Stock Management Policy. This policy recognizes that such stock mixing
is detrimental and seeks to maintain the genetic integrity of all
identifiable stocks of salmon and steelhead in California, as well as
minimize interactions between hatchery and natural populations. To
protect the genetic integrity of salmon and steelhead stocks, this
policy directs CDFG to evaluate each salmon and steelhead stream and
classify it according to its probable genetic source and degree of
integrity. However, this has not yet been accomplished by the state.
Although non-native coho salmon stocks have been introduced in the
Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast ESU, most hatchery programs
are now being conducted without the import of broodstock from other
ESUs in accordance with CDFG's policy. With the exception of the Mad
River Hatchery, hatchery programs in this ESU are being operated as
supplementation hatcheries rather than production hatcheries. They are
taking eggs from the rivers in which they operate and returning fish to
the river from which they were taken. Release of hatchery fish occurs
in streams with stocks similar to the native runs. Efforts are made to
return hatchery fish to their natal streams, and they are held for an
acclimation period to increase the probability of imprinting. In
contrast, the Mad River Hatchery has used numerous out-of-basin and
out-of-state coho salmon stocks. A review of CDFG hatchery production
and planting records indicates that coho salmon smolts still continue
to be planted in streams other than that where the hatchery is located.
These out-of-stream plants have occurred both in other coho salmon ESUs
and in other basins within individual ESUs. In addition, there are
inadequate CDFG resources to tag enough hatchery coho salmon to monitor
return rates and rates of straying (CDFG 1995).
The CFGC has also developed specific policies for Private Non-
profit Hatcheries (section 1170-1175 of the Fish and Game Code) and
Cooperative Salmon and Steelhead Rearing Facilities (sections 1200-1206
of the Fish and Game Code) that have been incorporated into the Fish
and Game Code. These policies are intended to ensure that the bulk of
the state's salmon and steelhead resources are produced naturally and
that the state's goals of maintaining and increasing natural production
take precedence over the goals of cooperatively operated rearing
programs. Privately owned rearing and hatchery programs for coho salmon
in the Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast ESU are operated in
accordance with these policies.
In its comments on the proposed rule (CDFG, 1995), CDFG stated that
its coho salmon hatchery programs can be integrated into recovery plans
for each ESU within California through re-evaluation of each hatchery's
goals and constraints with program modifications where appropriate. In
a letter dated March 7, 1997 (CDFG, 1997b), CDFG reiterated its view
that its coho salmon hatchery programs are compatible with the recovery
of coho salmon and other at-risk salmon and steelhead populations in
California.
E. Other Natural or Human-Made Factors Affecting Its Continued
Existence
Natural Factors
Long-term trends in rainfall and marine productivity associated
with atmospheric conditions in the North Pacific Ocean likely have a
major influence on coho salmon production. Numerous comments received
by NMFS
[[Page 24599]]
underscored both the importance and uncertainties surrounding natural
environmental fluctuations, but few provided substantive new
information. Some commenters thought that recent coho salmon declines
were merely reflective of a natural production cycle while others
believed that declines had been exacerbated by human influences,
especially on freshwater habitats.
Populations that are fragmented or reduced in size and range are
more vulnerable to extinction by natural events. Whether recent
climatic conditions represent a long-term change that will continue to
affect salmonid stocks in the future or whether these changes are
short-term environmental fluctuations that can be expected to reverse
in the near future remains unclear. Many of the coho salmon population
declines began prior to these recent drought conditions.
1. Drought. Many areas of the Pacific coast have experienced
drought conditions during much of the past decade, a situation that has
undoubtedly contributed to the decline of many salmonid populations.
Drought conditions reduce the amount of water available, resulting in
reductions (or elimination) of flows needed for adult coho salmon
passage, egg incubation, and juvenile rearing and migration. There are
indications in tree ring records that droughts more severe than the
drought that California recently experienced occurred in the past
(Stine 1994). Aside from the critical role that habitat complexity
plays in providing fish with instream refugia during drought
conditions, the key to survival in this type of variable and rapidly
changing environment is the evolution of behaviors and life history
traits that allow coho salmon to cope with a variety of environmental
conditions.
2. Floods. With high inherent erosion risk, urban encroachment, and
intensive timber management, flood events can cause major soil loss
(Hagans et al., 1986; Nawa et al., 1991; Higgins et al., 1992). As
previously mentioned, sedimentation of stream beds has been implicated
as a principal cause of declining salmonid populations throughout their
range. Floods can result in mass wasting of erodible hillslopes and
failure of roads on unstable slopes causing catastrophic erosion. In
addition, flooding can cause scour and redeposition of spawning gravels
in typically inaccessible areas.
During flood events, land disturbances resulting from logging, road
construction, mining, urbanization, livestock grazing, agriculture,
fire, and other uses may contribute sediment directly to streams or
exacerbate sedimentation from natural erosive processes (California
Advisory Committee on Salmon and Steelhead Trout, 1988; CSLC, 1993;
FEMAT, 1993). Judsen and Ritter (1964), the California Department of
Water Resources (CDWR, 1982), and the California State Lands Commission
(CSLC, 1993) have stated that northwestern and central coastal
California have some of the most erodible terrain in the world. Several
studies have indicated that, in this region, catastrophic erosion and
subsequent stream sedimentation (such as during the 1955 and 1964
floods) resulted from areas which had been clearcut or which had roads
constructed on unstable soils (Janda et al., 1975; Wahrhaftig, 1976;
Kelsey, 1980; Lisle, 1982; Hagans et al., 1986).
As streams and pools fill in with sediment, flood flow capacity is
reduced. Such changes cause decreased stream stability and increased
bank erosion, and, subsequently, exacerbate existing sedimentation
problems (Lisle, 1982), including sedimentation of spawning gravels and
filling of pools and estuaries. Channel widening and loss of pool-
riffle sequence due to sedimentation has damaged spawning and rearing
habitat of all salmonids. By 1980, the pool-riffle sequence and pool
quality in some California streams still had not fully recovered from
the 1964 regional flood. In fact, Lisle (1982) and Weaver and Hagans
(1996) found that many Pacific coast streams continue to show signs of
harboring debris flow from the 1964 flood. Such streams have remained
shallow, wide, warm, and unstable.
More recently, between November 1995 and April 1996, the Pacific
Northwest experienced a rare series of storm and flood events. High
winds, heavy rainfall, rapid snowmelt, numerous landslides and debris
torrents, mobilization of large woody debris and high runoff occurred
over portions of Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Montana (USFS and BLM,
1996). These storms, which resulted in 100-year floods in some Oregon
coastal basins, also had a potentially large effect on the survival of
Oregon coast coho salmon and the freshwater habitats upon which they
depend. Aerial surveys from a study by Pacific Watershed Associates
(PWA undated) in the middle Coast Range of Oregon noted that areas with
the greatest impact were typically watersheds with a combination of
steep slopes, unstable bedrock geology, recent timber harvesting, high
road densities, and within the altitude range where precipitation
intensities were probably the greatest. This study also stressed that
landslides were highly correlated with management activities and
originated from recent clear-cuts and forest roads at much higher
frequencies than from wilderness or unmanaged areas. In addition to
these observations, Pacific Watershed Associates concluded that the
floods may have had long-term effects on watershed habitats. For
example, they suggested that materials destabilized but not mobilized
by the flood may remain unstable and therefore be susceptible to future
flood events for some time, materials deposited in streams and rivers
may persist for decades, and the impact to larger streams and rivers
may actually increase over a period of several years as sediment is
moved downstream.
With regard to impacts to in-stream coho salmon habitat, changes
due to flooding were both positive and negative, depending on the area.
For example, ODFW surveys (Moore and Jones, 1997) identified some areas
with many new channels cut, which could provide off-channel habitat for
coho salmon. In the Tillamook Bay basin, the Wilson River received
major negative impacts, while the Tillamook and Trask Rivers received
little impact. Siuslaw National Forest (SNF, 1996) reported that the
February 1996 flooding actually increased positive habitat changes
(increased pool area and quality, increased cover complexity, and shift
from bedrock, boulder and cobble substrates to gravel and sand) in many
smaller streams in areas undergoing habitat improvement projects but
not in adjacent, untreated reaches, nor in habitat improvement projects
in large streams. Bush et al. (1997) noted that decreases in pool area
ranged from 10-50 percent, and largely resulted from a 60-percent loss
of beaver pond habitat (which provide critical overwinter coho salmon
habitat). Large woody debris decreased by approximately 25 percent from
the initial surveys, although much of the lost wood had been pushed up
onto the floodplain or out of the active channel. Overall, large
amounts of gravel were added to most streams, and new gravel bars were
common.
Recent stream production studies conducted by ODFW (Solazzi and
Johnson, 1997) indicate that 1996 smolt production in four central
Oregon coast study streams were lower than recent averages, with
overwinter survival the lowest or second lowest on record for the two
streams for which estimates were made, and that age zero fish
production was also low. They concluded that the most significant
impact of the flooding was on juveniles and coho salmon eggs that were
in the
[[Page 24600]]
gravel at the time of the flood. While these results are based on a
small sample of streams and may not reflect average effects of the
floods, it suggests that 1997 and 1998 adult returns to some coastal
basins will be reduced by the floods. Longer-term effects of the floods
can also be expected to vary among basins, but most reports available
to us suggest that long-term effects should generally be neutral or
slightly beneficial (e.g., from sediment removal and increased off-
channel habitat) to coho salmon.
3. Ocean Conditions and El Nino. Large fluctuations in Pacific
salmon catch have occurred during the past century. Annual world
harvest of Pacific salmon has varied from 772 million kg in the 1930s
to about 409 million kg in 1977 and back to 818 million kg by 1989
(Hare and Francis, 1993). Mechanisms linking atmospheric and oceanic
physics and fish populations have been suggested for Pacific salmon
(Rogers, 1984; Nickelson, 1986; Johnson, 1988; Brodeur and Ware, 1992;
Francis et al., 1992; Francis, 1993; Hare and Francis, 1993; Ward,
1993). Many studies have tried to correlate the production or marine
survival of salmon with environmental factors (Pearcy, 1992; Neeley,
1994). Vernon (1958), Holtby and Scrivener (1989), and Holtby et al.
(1990) have reported associations between salmon survival and sea
surface temperature and salinity, especially during the first few
months that salmonids are at sea. Francis and Sibley (1991), Rogers
(1984), and Cooney et al. (1993) also found relationships between
salmon production and sea surface temperature. Some studies have tried
to link salmon production to oceanic and atmospheric climate change.
For example, Beamish and Bouillon (1993) and Ward (1993) found that
trends in Pacific salmon catches were similar to trends in winter
atmospheric circulation in the North Pacific.
Francis and Sibley (1991) and Francis et al. (1992) have developed
a model linking decadal-scale atmospheric variability and salmon
production that incorporates hypotheses developed by Hollowed and
Wooster (1991) and Wickett (1967), as well as evidence presented in
many other studies. The model developed by Francis et al. (1992)
describes a time series of biological and physical variables from the
Northeast Pacific that appear to share decadal-scale patterns.
Biological and physical variables that appear to have undergone shifts
during the late 1970s include the following: Abundance of salmon
(Rogers, 1984 and 1987; Hare and Francis, 1993) and other pelagic fish,
cephalopods, and zooplankton (Brodeur and Ware, 1992); oceanographic
properties such as current transport (Royer, 1989), sea surface
temperature and upwelling (Holowed and Wooster, 1991); and atmospheric
phenomena such as atmospheric circulation patterns, sea-surface
pressure patterns, and sea-surface wind-stress (Trenberth, 1990;
Trenberth et al., 1993).
Finally, Scarnecchia (1981) reported that near-shore conditions
during the spring and summer months along the California coast may
dramatically affect year-class strength of salmonids. Bottom et al.
(1986) believed that coho salmon along the Oregon and California coast
may be especially sensitive to upwelling patterns because these regions
lack extensive bays, straits, and estuaries, such as those found along
the Washington, British Columbia, and Alaskan coast, which could buffer
adverse oceanographic effects. They speculate that the paucity of high
quality near-shore habitat, coupled with variable ocean conditions,
makes freshwater rearing habitat more crucial for the survival and
persistence of many coho salmon populations.
An environmental condition often cited as a cause for the decline
of west coast salmonids is the condition known as ``El Nino.'' El Nino
is a warming of the Pacific Ocean off South America and is caused by
atmospheric changes in the tropical Pacific Ocean. During an El Nino
event, a plume of warm sea water flows from west to east toward South
America, eventually reaching the coast where it is deflected south and
north along the continents.
El Nino ocean conditions are characterized by anomalously warm sea
surface temperature and changes in thermal structure, coastal currents,
and upwelling. Principal ecosystem alterations include decreases in
primary and secondary productivity and changes in prey and predator
species distributions. Several El Nino events have been recorded during
the last several decades, including those of 1940-41, 1957-58, 1982-83,
1986-87, 1991-92, and 1993-94. The degree to which adverse ocean
conditions can influence coho salmon production was demonstrated during
the El Nino event of 1982-83, which resulted in a 24 to 27 percent
reduction in fecundity and a 58 percent reduction (based on pre-return
predictions) in survival of adult coho salmon stocks originating from
the Oregon Production Index area (Johnson, 1988).
Manmade Factors--Artificial Propagation
Potential problems associated with hatchery programs include
genetic impacts on indigenous, naturally-reproducing populations,
disease transmission, predation of wild fish, difficulty in determining
wild stock status due to incomplete marking of hatchery fish, depletion
of wild stock to increase brood stock, and replacement rather than
supplementation of wild stocks through competition and continued annual
introduction of hatchery fish (Waples, 1991; Hindar et al., 1991;
Stewart and Bjornn, 1990). All things being equal, the more hatchery
fish that are released, the more likely natural populations are to be
impacted by hatchery fish. Similarly, the more genetically similar
hatchery fish are to natural populations they spawn with, the less
change there will be in the genetic makeup of future generations in the
natural population. Non-native coho salmon stocks have been introduced
as broodstock in hatcheries and widely transplanted in many coastal
rivers and streams in Oregon and California (Bryant, 1994; Weitkamp et
al., 1995; NMFS, 1997a).
Advancement and compression of run timing have been common
phenomena in hatchery populations, and these changes can affect future
generations of naturally-reproducing fish. Fry of early-spawning adults
generally hatch earlier and grow faster and can thus displace fry of
later-spawning natural fish (Chapman, 1962). Conversely, early-spawning
coho salmon redds are more prone to being destroyed by early fall
floods. Consequently, early-spawning individuals may be unable to
establish permanent, self-sustaining populations but may nevertheless
adversely affect existing natural populations (Solazzi et al., 1990). A
recent study found that over a period of 13 years, the range of
spawning timing of coho salmon at five Washington hatcheries decreased
from 10 weeks to 3 weeks, causing the range of the period of return to
the hatcheries to decrease by one-half (Flagg et al., 1995).
Another common hatchery practice with coho salmon is release of
``excess'' hatchery production into natural habitat as fry or parr.
Outplanting large numbers of large hatchery juveniles into streams
already occupied by naturally-produced juveniles may place the resident
fish at a competitive disadvantage and may force them into marginal
habitats that have low survival potential (Chapman, 1962; Solazzi et
al., 1990).
[[Page 24601]]
Stock transfers of coho salmon were common throughout the Oregon
and California coast; the nature and magnitude of these transfers
varied by area and basin. Compared to areas farther north, hatcheries
in central California and southern Oregon/northern California are
relatively small and widely dispersed, given the size of both areas.
Northern California hatcheries have received fairly large transplants
of coho salmon from hatcheries in Washington and Oregon, which have
spread to central California through stock transfers. Because of the
predominance of hatchery stocks in the Klamath River basin, stock
transfers into Trinity and Iron Gate Hatcheries may have had a
substantial impact on natural populations in the basin and raises
serious concerns about their sustainability. Available information
indicates that virtually all of the naturally spawning fish in the
Trinity River are first generation hatchery fish. In contrast, Cole
Rivers Hatchery (on the Rogue River) appears to have relied exclusively
on native stocks.
In recent years, large hatcheries in southern Oregon/northern
California (e.g., Mad and Trinity River Hatcheries) have produced
400,000 to 500,000 juveniles annually, while smaller hatcheries, and
most hatcheries in central California, produce no more than 100,000 to
200,000 juveniles each year. Most Oregon coastal hatcheries recently
produced approximately 400,000 to 1,400,000 juveniles annually,
although private hatcheries (no longer in operation) recently produced
2 to 5 million juvenile coho salmon annually. Most historic transfers
of coho salmon into Oregon coastal hatcheries used other Oregon coastal
stocks. However, some coastal hatchery programs (notably private
hatcheries no longer in existence) made extensive use of Puget Sound
coho salmon stocks. Some transfers of Columbia River coho salmon into
Oregon coastal hatcheries have occurred, but these were relatively
infrequent and minor. Similarly, most outplants of coho salmon into
Oregon coastal rivers have used Oregon coastal stocks, with outplants
of stocks from other areas being relatively small and infrequent.
NMFS received a number of comments regarding the impacts of
hatchery fish on wild coho salmon populations. Some commenters
(including a peer reviewer) contended that NMFS overstated the
significance of impacts from hatchery fish on wild coho salmon. NMFS
has worked with the state agency comanagers to resolve uncertainties
regarding these impacts, and has documented these findings in a status
review update (NMFS 1997a). These findings note that widespread
spawning by hatchery fish continues to be a major concern for both the
Oregon Coast and Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast ESUs. Scale
analyses to determine hatchery-wild ratios of naturally spawning fish
indicate moderate to high levels of hatchery fish spawning naturally in
many basins on the Oregon coast, and at least a few hatchery fish were
identified in almost every basin examined. Although it is possible that
these data do not provide a representative picture of the extent of
this problem, they represent the best information available at the
present time. In addition to concerns for genetic and ecological
interactions with wild fish, these data also suggest that the natural
portion (i.e., fish born in the gravel) of the natural spawner
abundance may be overestimated by ODFW and that the declines in
recruits per spawner in many areas may have been even more severe than
current estimates indicate (NMFS, 1997a). However, Oregon has made some
significant changes in its hatchery practices, such as substantially
reducing production levels in some basins, switching to on-station
smolt releases, and decreasing fry releases, and proposes additional
changes (discussed below), to address this and other concerns about the
impacts of hatchery fish on natural populations.
While there are obvious concerns over the negative effects of
hatchery fish on wild coho salmon stocks, it is important to note that
artificial propagation could play an important role in coho salmon
recovery and that some hatchery populations of coho salmon may be
deemed essential for the recovery of threatened or endangered ESUs
(e.g., if the associated natural population(s) were already extinct or
at high risk of extinction). Under these circumstances, NMFS would
consider taking the administrative action of listing the hatchery fish.
Efforts To Protect Oregon and California Coho Salmon
Under section 4 of the ESA, a determination to propose a species
for listing as threatened or endangered requires considering the
biological status of the species, as well as efforts being made to
protect the species. Since the early 1990s Federal agencies, state and
local governments and private parties have taken substantial measures
to protect coho salmon in Oregon and California. These measures affect
habitat, harvest, and hatchery activities. In the agency's decision to
invoke a statutory extension for the listing determination (October 31,
1996, 61 FR 56211), it was noted that the State of Oregon was planning
to submit a peer-reviewed salmon restoration initiative (i.e., the
Oregon Coastal Salmon Restoration Initiative) for NMFS' consideration
in the spring of 1997. California was undertaking a similar effort, but
it was less certain when its plan would be completed. These plans were
expected to contain detailed summaries and assessments of conservation
measures which benefit coho salmon in the respective states, and hence
aid NMFS in making a listing determination. The following sections
summarize these Federal and state conservation efforts.
I. Federal Conservation Efforts. 1. NFP. The NFP is a Federal
interagency cooperative program, the Record of Decision for Amendments
to U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and BLM Planning Documents Within the
Range of the Spotted Owl, which was signed and implemented in April
1994. The NFP represents a coordinated ecosystem management strategy
for Federal lands administered by the USFS and BLM within the range of
the Northern spotted owl (which overlaps considerably with the
freshwater range of coho salmon). The NFP region-wide management
direction either amended or was incorporated into approximately 26 USFS
land and resource management plans (LRMPs) and two regional guides.
The most significant element of the NFP for anadromous fish is its
Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS), a regional-scale aquatic ecosystem
conservation strategy that includes: (1) Special land allocations, such
as key watersheds, riparian reserves, and late-successional reserves,
to provide aquatic habitat refugia; (2) special requirements for
project planning and design in the form of standards and guidelines;
and (3) new watershed analysis, watershed restoration, and monitoring
processes. These ACS components collectively ensure that Federal land
management actions achieve a set of nine Aquatic Conservation Strategy
objectives, which include salmon habitat conservation. In recognition
of over 300 ``at-risk'' Pacific salmonid stocks within the NFP area
(Nehlsen et al., 1991), the ACS was developed by aquatic scientists,
with NMFS participation, to restore and maintain the ecological health
of watersheds and aquatic ecosystems on public lands. The ACS strives
to maintain and restore ecosystem health at watershed and landscape
scales to protect habitat for fish and other riparian-dependent species
and resources and to restore currently degraded habitats. The approach
seeks
[[Page 24602]]
to prevent further degradation and to restore habitat on Federal lands
over broad landscapes.
In the final rule listing Umpqua River cutthroat trout as
endangered (August 9, 1996, 61 FR 41514), NMFS acknowledged that NFP
amendments to Federal LRMPs were ``intended to ultimately reverse the
trend of aquatic ecosystem degradation and contribute toward recovery
of fish habitat,'' however, it was noted at the time that the results
of the NFP ACS were ``yet to be demonstrated.'' Following 3 years of
NFP implementation, NMFS subsequently reviewed the adequacy of 14
individual LRMPs, as modified by the NFP and its ACS, for conserving
Oregon Coast and Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast coho salmon.
The results of these reviews are described in two conference opinions
(NMFS, 1995 and 1997d) that document NMFS'' determinations that the
programmatic direction for Federal land management actions embodied in
the 14 LRMPs would not be likely to jeopardize the continued existence
of Oregon Coast or Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast coho
salmon. Moreover, the opinions concluded that implementation of
management direction in the LRMPs and RMPs will result in substantially
improved habitat conditions for these ESUs over the next few decades
and into the future. Improved habitat conditions will result in
increased survival of the freshwater life stages of these fish.
Implementation of actions consistent with the ACS objectives and
components--including watershed analysis, watershed restoration,
reserve and refugia land allocations, and associated standards and
guidelines--will provide high levels of aquatic ecosystem
understanding, protection, and restoration for aquatic habitat-
dependent species.
Federal lands managed under the NFP comprise about 35 percent of
the total area of the Oregon Coast coho salmon ESU. This includes all
or part of the Siskiyou, Siuslaw, and Umpqua National Forests (NF); and
the Coos Bay, Eugene, Medford, Roseburg and Salem BLM Districts.
Federal land ownership in the Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast
coho salmon ESU represents approximately 53 percent of the total area
of the ESU and includes Federal land managed by the USFS, BLM, and
National Park Service (NPS). The USFS lands, for example, include all
or substantial portions of four National Forests (Klamath NF, Six
Rivers NF, Shasta-Trinity NF, and Mendocino NF). The vast majority of
the USFS land is concentrated in the northernmost California
watersheds, including significant portions of the Smith River basin
(including the Smith River National Recreational Area, which is part of
Six Rivers NF), the mid-to upper Klamath basin (with the exception of
Scott and Shasta Rivers), and the Trinity River basin.
2. Other Federal Programs. Other significant federally funded and/
or managed conservation programs or activities in the California
portion of the Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast ESU include
the Klamath Basin Restoration Program, the Trinity River Basin Fish and
Wildlife Restoration Program, the Action Plan for the Restoration of
the South Fork Trinity River Watershed and Fisheries, and Redwood
National Park efforts to restore anadromous salmonid habitat in the
Redwood Creek basin.
In addition to these major efforts, NMFS is also engaged in
significant ESA section 7 consultation actions on several Federal
projects or activities in the California portion of this ESU. These
efforts include: (1) Consultation with the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR)
concerning operations management of the Klamath Project in the upper
Klamath River basin to provide adequate flows for anadromous salmonids
in the mainstem Klamath River, (2) consultation with the FWS and BOR to
provide adequate flows and temperatures for anadromous salmonids in the
mainstem Trinity River, (3) consultation with the COE to address gravel
mining and other instream activities, and (4) consultation with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) concerning inter-basin
water transfers from the Eel River to the Russian River (between the
Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast ESU and Central California
ESU) via Pacific Gas & Electric's Potter Valley Project. These
consultation efforts are expected to contribute significantly to the
long-term conservation of coho salmon and its habitat. Other Federal
efforts in Oregon include the South Slough National Estuarine Research
Reserve located in Coos Bay, an upcoming consultation on a hydropower
facility on the Umpqua River, continued road retirement and
obliteration on Federal forest lands, and ongoing review of Elk Creek
Dam and Savage Rapids Dam on the Rogue River and the proposed Milltown
Hill Dam on the Umpqua River.
The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) assists
agriculture in addressing impacts to anadromous fish. The NRCS is
currently engaged with the NMFS in discussions about updating their
Field Office Technical Guides (FOTGs) to better assist landowners in
California and Oregon desiring to implement voluntary conservation
measures protective of, or benefitting, salmonids. A subset of the
FOTGs are the guidance that local field offices follow when engaging in
actions that may affect anadromous fish or their habitats.
3. Habitat Conservation Plans. NMFS and the FWS are engaged in an
ongoing effort to assist in the development of multiple species Habitat
Conservation Plans (HCPs) for state and privately owned lands in both
California and Oregon. While section 7 of the ESA addresses species
protection on Federal lands, Habitat Conservation Planning under
section 10 of the ESA addresses species protection on private (non-
Federal) lands. HCPs are particularly important since approximately 65
percent of the habitat in the range of these ESUs is in non-federal
ownership. The intent of the HCP process is to reduce conflicts between
listed species and economic development activities, and to provide a
framework that would encourage ``creative partnerships'' between the
public and private sectors and state, municipal, and Federal agencies
in the interests of endangered and threatened species and habitat
conservation (NRC, 1995).
II. Oregon's Coastal Salmon Restoration Initiative (OCSRI).
Beginnings of the OCSRI. In October 1995, Oregon's Governor John
Kitzhaber launched the OCSRI. One of the Governor's first steps was to
establish a team approach for developing an action plan to restore the
health of coastal salmon and trout populations. The following key teams
were formed early in the process: (1) A Salmon Strategy Team in which
the directors of key state agencies met with the Governor on a biweekly
basis; (2) an Outreach and Education Team that was directed to work
with key agency stakeholders, ask for their advice, and present ideas
for their comment; (3) a Science Team to work on technical issues; and
(4) an Agency Planning & Implementation Team to coordinate many aspects
of the development of the conservation plan. Senior NMFS staff members
participated as members of the Salmon Strategy Team, the Science Team,
and the Agency Planning & Implementation Team.
This effort focussed each of the major state agencies on developing
a plan, removing institutional barriers, and working through difficult
issues with their state and Federal colleagues, stakeholders, and the
public. Meanwhile, the science team was
[[Page 24603]]
working on the biological underpinnings of the OCSRI.
Essential Tenets of the OCSRI
1. The plan comprehensively addresses all factors for decline of
the coho salmon, most notably, those factors relating to harvest,
habitat, and hatchery activities.
2. Under this plan, all State agencies whose activities affect
salmon are held accountable for coordinating their programs in a manner
that conserves and restores the species and their habitat. This is
essential because coastal salmon have been affected by the actions of
many different state agencies.
3. The Plan includes a framework for prioritizing conservation and
restoration efforts. Draft coho salmon ``core areas'' are identified in
order to focus measures on retaining current salmon strongholds while
rebuilding other areas.
4. The Plan includes a comprehensive monitoring plan that
coordinates Federal, state, and local efforts to improve our
understanding of freshwater and marine conditions, determine
populations trends, evaluate the effects of artificial propagation, and
rate the OCSRI's success in restoring the salmon.
5. The Plan recognizes that actions to conserve and restore salmon
must be worked out by communities and landowners--those who possess
local knowledge of problems and who have a genuine stake in the
outcome. Watershed councils, soil and water conservation districts, and
other grassroots efforts are the vehicles for getting this work done.
6. The Plan is based upon the principles of adaptive management.
Through this process, there is an explicit mechanism for learning from
experience, evaluating alternative approaches, and making needed
changes in the programs and measures.
7. The Plan includes an Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team
(IMST). The IMST's purpose is to provide an independent audit of the
OCSRI's strengths and weaknesses. They will aid the adaptive management
process by compiling new information into a yearly review of goals,
objectives, and strategies, and by recommending changes.
8. The Plan requires that a yearly report be made to the Governor,
the legislature, and the public. This will help the agencies make the
adjustments described for the adaptive management process (above).
Development of the OCSRI
The state distributed a draft OCSRI to interested parties in August
1996. Shortly thereafter, county commissioners sponsored a series of
public information meetings to involve key groups and interested
individuals in the following locations: Astoria, Tillamook, Newport,
Coos Bay, Grants Pass, Gold Beach, Roseburg, and Portland. The
Governor's staff presented the draft OCSRI and explained the
opportunities for public comment. More than 550 people attended these
public meetings. The August 1996 OCSRI draft was critically reviewed
and over 600 pages of comments, suggestions, and questions on the draft
Plan were received. Those comments were used by Oregon to revise the
Plan.
In September 1996, NMFS published and distributed Coastal Salmon
Conservation: Working Guidance For Comprehensive Salmon Restoration
Initiatives On the Pacific Coast (NMFS, 1996d). The intent of the
document was to help guide restoration initiatives such as the OCSRI.
The OCSRI was revised and supplemented in many areas in response to
that guidance. In early November 1996, William Stelle, Jr., NMFS'
Northwest Regional Administrator, sent Governor Kitzhaber a package of
substantive comments on the August OCSRI draft.
A second draft of the OCSRI was issued on February 24, 1997.
Although time was short, Legislators, constituents, and NMFS technical
staff reviewed this draft and provided additional suggestions for
improving the Plan. Many of these were incorporated into the final
document. As part of the Oregon Legislature's consideration of the
OCSRI, several more public hearings were held and testimony was taken.
In March 1997, NMFS received the final OCSRI for consideration in this
coho salmon listing decision.
Addressing Coho Salmon Factors for Decline
The protective measures contained in the OCSRI represent
commitments by various state agencies (and their stakeholders),
watershed councils, the forest industry, and the Federal government to
address coho salmon ``factors for decline.'' Factors for decline
identified in the OCSRI include: Loss/degradation of riparian areas,
changes in channel morphology, changes in stream substrate, loss of
instream roughness (structure), fish passage impediments, loss of
estuarine rearing habitat, loss of wetlands, water quality degradation/
sedimentation, changes in flow, elimination of habitat, harvest impacts
on spawner escapement, illegal salmon catch, salmon bycatch, low ocean
productivity, loss of genetic adaptation through interbreeding with
genetically dissimilar hatchery fish, competition with hatchery fish,
predation by pinnipeds and sea birds, and interaction with exotic
fishes. The OCSRI incorporates measures presented by state agencies and
their stakeholders as well as Federal agencies to address these factors
for decline.
OCSRI Habitat Measures
The OCSRI organized its habitat measures by the 17 habitat-related
factors for decline listed above. This organization enables an
evaluation of the extent to which the OSCRI's measures influence or
reverse each of the factors for decline. Typically, more than one
management sector (forestry, agriculture, urban, etc.) contributed to
each of the factors for decline. For example, forestry and agricultural
measures both address several factors for decline, including loss of
riparian areas, channel morphology, substrate changes, instream
roughness, water quality and sedimentation (NMFS, 1997b).
On state lands, the Oregon Department of Forestry is preparing a
Northwest Oregon State Forest Management Plan. The State of Oregon has
indicated interest in working with NMFS and FWS on a multiple-species
HCP for approximately 600,000 acres in the Clatsop, Tillamook, and
possibly Elliott State Forests. These HCPs would contain aquatic
conservation strategies that meet the standards of section 10 of the
ESA. Additional HCPs with private landowners may increase the total
acreage managed under protective HCPs within this timeframe.
On private forested lands, the State of Oregon developed new forest
practices regulations (effective July 1995) that represent an
improvement over past forest practices. The OCSRI also provides some
additional voluntary measures on the part of industrial forest
landowners and small woodland owners that focus on OCSRI core areas,
including increased conifer retention in riparian management areas and
in-unit leave tree placement for some fish and non-fish bearing
streams. Another voluntary measure with significant promise is a road
erosion and risk reduction measure that could reduce road-related
sediment inputs, road related mass failures, and culvert problems.
On agricultural lands, the State of Oregon addresses coho salmon
habitat protection and restoration through the 1993 Senate Bill (SB)
1010 (ORS 568.900-933) and its extension, the Healthy Streams
Partnership (HSP). The purpose of SB1010 is to meet the requirements of
the Federal CWA on
[[Page 24604]]
agricultural lands. Complete and successful implementation of the CWA,
and the State's water quality programs, could substantially benefit
coho salmon.
The OCSRI's greatest contribution is that it provides a
comprehensive framework for integrating habitat protection and
restoration efforts by all entities, public and private. An important
innovation is the emphasis upon voluntary citizen action, utilizing the
industry and resource management expertise of local private property
owners. Critical components of the OCSRI that should contribute to
habitat restoration include watershed council programs, monitoring, and
adaptive management described below.
OCSRI Harvest Measures
Overfishing has greatly depleted the coastal coho salmon; it is a
primary factor for the species' decline. Harvest rates on coho salmon
have at times exceeded 80 percent, but have recently been reduced to an
average of less than 15 percent. Ocean harvest of coho salmon stocks is
managed by NMFS in conjunction with the Pacific Fishery Management
Council, the states, and certain tribes. Coho salmon ocean harvest is
managed by setting escapement goals for OCN coho salmon. Due to
concerns over declining population status, directed harvest of coho
salmon has been eliminated since 1994.
The OCSRI establishes a comprehensive, weak-stock management
framework for ensuring that fishing-related mortalities remain at low
levels. The harvest levels may increase in the future, but only
moderately, and only based on (1) substantiated increases in coho
salmon escapement beyond targeted levels, and (2) greater marine
survival that will ensure continued growth of the natural spawning
populations.
More specifically, the OCSRI establishes new, disaggregated
escapement objectives for four component stocks of the existing OCN
coho salmon stock. Harvest rates on each of these four stock components
will be allowed to increase from current levels of 10-13 percent (to a
maximum of 35 percent) only if significant increases are attained in
escapement and productivity. In mixed-stock areas, such as most ocean
waters, harvest rates will be limited by the weakest stock component.
Within any given stock component, terminal and in-river harvest will be
regulated to achieve escapement limits for that component. In addition,
if any individual basin has a severe conservation problem, harvest
within that basin and in mixed-stock areas may be further restricted.
In the near term, Oregon proposes to limit ocean coho salmon
harvest impacts (mostly incidental to the harvest of chinook salmon) to
low levels. As populations achieve abundance and productivity targets,
fisheries may be established to target marked, unlisted hatchery coho
salmon. Ultimately, after high escapement levels have been achieved and
evaluated, specific fisheries may be allowed that take some unmarked,
naturally-produced coho salmon from healthy populations, as other
weaker populations continue to recover. Any downturn in either the
marine survival or escapement targets will result in further
restrictions.
As described in OCSRI's monitoring program, harvest impacts will be
regulated through established, public forums that evaluate the most
recent data on natural escapements, population abundance, direct and
indirect fishing mortalities, and measurements of wild and hatchery
fish survival rates in ocean waters.
OCSRI Hatchery Measures
Hatchery production of coho salmon has been identified as a factor
in the decline of natural coho salmon populations. Past increases in
hatchery programs to enhance sport and commercial fisheries are now
believed to have adversely affected natural populations: Hatchery fish
competed with wild coho salmon for limited food and habitat; stray
hatchery adults spawned, often in excessive numbers, with wild fish,
likely reducing the fitness and productivity of the wild populations.
This problem of genetic introgression was, at times, compounded by the
use of non-local hatchery broodstocks.
Under the OCSRI, coho salmon smolt releases that numbered 6.4
million in 1990 (and were subsequently reduced to 3.5 million in 1996)
will be reduced 64 percent by 1998, thus decreasing adverse competitive
interactions. Hatchery releases will be further reduced or modified, if
necessary, to keep adult stray rates to less than 10 percent, thus
minimizing the effects of genetic introgression. As deemed appropriate
to meet wild fish management needs, hatchery broodstocks will receive
infusion of wild fish to minimize genetic divergence of the
populations.
Oregon has already begun marking all hatchery coho salmon to
differentiate them from naturally-produced fish. This will allow more
accurate assessment of stray rates and allow for any future selective
fisheries on hatchery coho salmon when conditions permit. Artificial
propagation may be used to boost natural coho salmon populations or
reintroduce coho salmon into vacant habitats, but only after specific
management plans are developed and reviewed.
Watershed Councils
Watershed councils are voluntary groups established to improve the
condition of the state's watersheds. Oregon laid the foundation for its
statewide local watershed council program in 1993. That year, House
Bill 2215 set up the program and established two pilot project areas.
Due to the success of the program pilots, in 1995 the legislature
passed House Bill 3441. This law delegates to the Governor's Watershed
Enhancement Board (GWEB) the responsibility to work with local councils
and to coordinate project funding. The GWEB approves funding for only
those projects based on sound principles of watershed management and
encourages the use of nonstructural methods to enhance riparian areas
and associated uplands. The GWEB uses the expertise of state agencies
according to the type of enhancement project in development, and
cooperates with the Federal agencies to ensure integrated efforts.
The premise of the OCSRI is that factors for decline are, and will
continue to be, identified in individual watersheds, and that one of
the primary means to address those factors will be action plans
implemented on a local level involving watershed councils, soil and
water conservation districts (SWCDs), the Oregon State University
Cooperative Extension Service, landowners, local governments,
conservation groups and other grassroots stakeholders. Since 1993, over
60 watershed Councils have been formed in Oregon. The entire Oregon
coast is now represented by local watershed Councils. Three of these
watersheds will be used as model integration projects for the OCSRI.
Two of these, the Applegate and the Coquille Councils, already have
strong programs that will act as a templates for other Councils on the
coast.
Watershed Councils are currently in different stages in their
development of watershed action plans. The action plan is a working
document that characterizes the conditions on the watershed, identifies
priority areas (based on watershed analysis) for restoration and
protection, sets out public involvement strategies, and identifies
funding sources. Currently, Councils in the Rogue and South Coast
[[Page 24605]]
watersheds are participating in an effort to develop a guidance
document that will address the decline of salmon in those basins. A key
to this process is identification of current conditions and trends and
developing an understanding of their causes. The guidance document,
once fully developed, will allow the watershed Councils to update their
action plans and assessments.
Councils generally request participation from local, state,
Federal, and private resource professionals to participate in a
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). A TAC is a voluntary, scientific,
interdisciplinary, nonpolitical group whose purpose is to provide
advice and guidance on technical issues. A TAC advises Councils on how
to complete a watershed assessment, develop strategic plans, set
priorities, and design and implement projects and monitoring programs.
Since 1994, coastal watershed Council TACs have helped review,
design, and implement over 250 projects (including one riparian
restoration project that involved over 200 private land owners). TACs
have also been heavily involved in developing 11 watershed assessments
and action plans for watershed Councils. The process is continuing.
TACs are being created for new Councils, helping OCSRI, updating
watershed Council action plans and assessments, developing new
watershed Council action plans and assessments, and continuing to
develop, design, and implement on-the-ground projects.
The future success of watershed Councils depends on many factors--
including strong TACs. State agencies have made providing scientific
and technical support for watershed Councils a priority. Under the
OCSRI, state agencies and the Governor have requested new budget
packages that will enable agencies to better meet the increased Council
demands by adding field staff and increasing communication.
Monitoring Results and Adaptive Management
The OCSRI describes a comprehensive, aggressive, and coordinated
monitoring program. Full implementation of the monitoring program is a
crucial tool for adaptive management and the success of the OSCRI.
State and Federal agencies and other groups have made major commitments
to developing and supporting this effort. The objectives of the
monitoring program are to develop accurate information on the status of
salmon populations and their habitats, detect trends in abundance,
determine the effectiveness of measures designed to improve conditions
for salmon, and provide the analysis needed to help develop adaptive
management strategies for agencies, private landowners, watershed
Councils, and individuals. More specifically, monitoring and reporting
at the regional, basin, or subbasin scale will include: (1) Stream
biotic condition and ambient water quality assessments, (2) juvenile
salmon abundance surveys, (3) stream channel and habitat assessments,
(4) spawner abundance surveys, (5) genetic and life history monitoring,
(6) fish propagation monitoring, (7) harvest monitoring, (8) ``core
area'' and ``index area'' population and habitat monitoring, (9) ocean
condition monitoring, (10) estuary and riverine wetland population and
habitat monitoring, (11) Oregon Forest Practices and Northwest Forest
Plan conservation strategy monitoring, and (12) cumulative effects/
watershed assessment for mixed ownership.
For more localized decision making, the key monitoring and
assessment data will be provided on an ongoing basis to agency
managers, watershed Councils and initiative groups, and other
interested participants. Regional interagency groups have been
organized around state agency administrative boundaries. Participants
in the regional groups are lead agency decision-makers for field
operational programs. Relevant watershed assessment efforts and data
will be routinely reported to this group for coordination and
application purposes. The participants of this group are expected to
coordinate with the watershed Councils and SWCDs to ensure they all
receive the same information in a timely manner.
Watershed Councils, SWCDs, and other partners will report the
results of their watershed assessment efforts to the Monitoring Program
coordinator as each module is completed. These results will also be
given to the involved state and Federal agencies to support their day-
to-day decision making.
The interagency monitoring group will convene an annual monitoring
conference at which agencies and other partners will be required to
present the results of their monitoring efforts. This conference will
be used to adjust monitoring efforts and protocols and describe the
habitat and population trends. Annual progress of the OCSRI will be
assessed by comparing these monitoring results and trends with the
OCSRI's published biological objectives. The report (and results of the
conference) will be sent to the IMST established by the Oregon
Legislature (SB 924-B) for its use in auditing the program.
A bipartisan Joint Legislative Committee on Salmon and Stream
Enhancement will receive reports from the IMST including
recommendations for changes to the OCSRI. On the basis of these
reports, and reports of Oregon's Salmon Restoration and Production Task
Force, the Committee may recommend changes to the OSCRI. The annual
Governor's report on the ``State of the Salmon'' will also include
discussion and recommendations based upon the monitoring results. This
report will describe how the monitoring results will be used to adjust
the OSCRI's best management practices (BMPs) and program measures.
Funding for the OCSRI
The Natural Resource Investment Budget (authorized by the 69th
Oregon Legislative Assembly [House Bill 5042 and 5044] for the biennium
beginning July 1, 1997) provides $20 million in new grant funding to
support watershed Council coordinators and other local organizations.
The existing Governor's Watershed Enhancement Board will administer the
grant program. The budget also provides approximately $10 million to
add new technical staff to the Department of Agriculture (19
positions), the Department of Environmental Quality (19 positions), the
Department of Fish and Wildlife (14 positions), the Department of
Forestry (6 positions), the Water Resources Department (4 positions),
and the Department of Land Conservation and Development (1 position).
In addition, Oregon State Police reprogrammed 13 officers for public
education and enforcement of the OCSRI.
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between NMFS and Governor of Oregon
NMFS welcomed adoption of the OCSRI by Oregon and believed it would
provide significant protections for Oregon Coast ESU in a number of
areas. In particular, the harvest and hatchery measures will continue
to contribute to improved spawning escapement and the near-term
population stability of the ESU. NMFS was concerned, however, that the
habitat measures contained in the OCSRI will not secure adequate high
quality habitat over the long term to ensure coho survival under a
range of environmental conditions. To address this concern, NMFS
entered into a MOA in April 1997 with the Governor of Oregon (MOA
1997). Under the MOA, NMFS will provide the state of Oregon guidance on
those specific measures it considers adquate and necessary for habitat
protection. If these or equivalent measures are not adopted by Oregon
within 2 years, NMFS will promptly
[[Page 24606]]
change the ESA status of this ESU to the extent warranted. The MOA
further commits the parties to full implementation of all elements of
the OCSRI, including harvest and hatchery measures and provisions for
monitoring and scientific review.
III. California Efforts. In 1995, the California Resources Agency
initiated its Coastal Salmon Initiative (CSI), a community-oriented
planning effort designed to produce a conservation program based on
voluntary measures and incentives to protect fish and wildlife habitat
in a manner that would protect the economic interests of communities
within the range of coho salmon. The CSI planning process progressed
slowly and was suspended in late 1996, before a comprehensive state
conservation plan for coho salmon in California was developed.
Recently, however, the State of California has proposed instead to
develop and implement a state conservation plan known as the California
Watersheds Protection Program based on the State's Natural Communities
Conservation Planning (NCCP) Act. This conservation program is intended
to provide for the long-term protection and conservation of coho salmon
and other anadromous salmonids on non-Federal lands in California's
coastal watersheds, as well as a means for incidental take
authorization for activities on non-Federal lands. As part of this
conservation effort, the State would convene a Scientific Review Panel
to develop conservation guidelines for the implementation of the
Watershed Protection Program. These guidelines would include
conservation strategies and monitoring protocols necessary to protect
salmonid habitat in coastal watersheds. The State would subsequently
adopt these conservation guidelines under the California Fish and Game
Code and then begin the development of individual watershed protection
plans.
The Governor of California has proposed a $3.8 million Watershed
Initiative to assist in the development and implementation of the
California Watersheds Protection Program. The Governor's Budget
specifically proposes: (1) $1.5 million for CDFG to participate on
inter-agency watershed management team, lead wildlife standard teams,
provide guidance and technical assistance to community-based watershed
groups, and make grants for habitat restoration, (2) $1.0 million for
the state Water Resources Control Board and Regional Boards, for
watershed coordinators who will facilitate prioritization of regulatory
functions on a watershed basis, integrate resources in priority
watersheds, and maximize community involvement in the development and
implementation of water quality control plans, (3) $900,000 for the
Department of Conservation for inter-agency watershed management teams
and for grants to Resource Conservation Districts, and (4) $400,000 for
the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection to lead inter-agency
watershed teams, conduct watershed assessments, and provide geographic
information data base support.
In California, the Range Management Advisory Committee has
developed a Rangeland Water Quality Management Plan for inclusion in
the State's Nonpoint Source Management Plan. Its purpose is to maintain
and improve the quality and associated beneficial uses of surface water
as it passes through and out of rangeland resources in the State. The
programmatic emphasis is on a voluntary, cooperative approach to water
quality management. This includes appropriate technical assistance,
planning mechanisms, program incentives, and regulatory authorities.
This Plan has been favorably received by the State Water Resources
Control Board, EPA, and the BOF.
The state agencies identified in the Governor's Watershed
Initiative have developed budget plans, but the likelihood of funding
and implementation are unknown at this time. Implementation of the
Watershed Initiative will depend on the State Legislature's approval of
the budget request. Specific deficiencies of the Watershed Initiative
are that no funding past the current fiscal cycle is proposed, and
landowner participation in the program is voluntary. NMFS believes that
stakeholder-based solutions at the watershed level are essential to
recovering coho salmon but that adequate long-term funding and full
participation by all stakeholder groups will be necessary for the
state's program to succeed.
Local and private efforts are also underway in California. At least
eight industrial timber landowners are in the process of developing
HCPs that cover approximately 1.2 million acres of privately owned land
in Del Norte, Humboldt, Siskiyou, Trinity, and Mendocino counties. This
acreage includes ownership in the river basins: Smith River, Klamath
River, Redwood Creek, Little River, Mad River, Eel River, and several
smaller coastal streams. NMFS anticipates these landowners will be
submitting applications for ESA section 10 incidental take permits
within the next 6-12 months. These efforts are critical to the
conservation of coho salmon in the Southern Oregon/Northern California
Coast ESU because nearly 50 percent of the land is privately owned.
Long-term sustained gravel mining plans have been, or are being,
developed by three northern California counties (Del Norte, Humboldt,
and Mendocino) which comprise a substantial portion of the Southern
Oregon/Northern California Coast ESU's range in California. The
approach that is being used is to evaluate the impacts of all gravel
extraction projects within a watershed as part of a long-term gravel
mining plan, and then obtain a Letter of Permission (LOP) from the COE
to approve graveling mining projects at the county level. The LOPs
would be issued for a period of 3 years and would require annual
monitoring reports on gravel recruitment, river geomorphology, and
fisheries. Humboldt County currently has an LOP in-place and Del Norte
and Mendocino Counties are in the process of obtaining their LOPs. NMFS
will be working with the counties and the COE to ensure that any LOPs
issued for gravel mining are protective of coho salmon.
Timber, farming, and fishing interests formed the Fish, Forests,
and Farms Community (FFFC) organization in California in an effort to
address land management and fisheries issues related to salmon and
steelhead listings in California. The FFFC has focused its efforts in:
(1) Promoting research projects to improve the scientific knowledge
regarding salmonid life histories and habitat requirements in coastal
watersheds, and (2) developing standardized protocols for biological
and physical assessment and monitoring of anadromous fish habitat and
populations in coastal watersheds. The FFFC has made important progress
to date, and it should be recognized for its efforts to bring together
multiple and diverse interests. More importantly, FFFC is attempting to
fill a void for standardizing data collection and to quantify technical
processes that should eventually lead to a better scientific
understanding of coho salmon.
In 1996, the California Forestry Association established the Forest
Science Project (FSP) at Humboldt State University. The purpose of the
industry-sponsored FSP is to acquire, compile, and disseminate baseline
biological and habitat information being developed by private timber
companies operating within the California portion of the Southern
Oregon/Northern California Coast ESU. The timber industry expects to
continue this on-going effort to compile and synthesize biological,
[[Page 24607]]
habitat, and other types of data, and has expressed interest in
developing a process with NMFS that would assure that such data are
available for future decision making.
Local habitat restoration and planning efforts are also currently
ongoing in several watersheds that should contribute to the
conservation of coho salmon in the Southern Oregon/Northern California
Coast ESU. These include efforts by the Scott River Watershed Committee
and French Creek Watershed Advisory Group in the Scott River watershed,
the Shasta River Project (Shasta River watershed), the South Fork
Trinity River (South Fork Trinity River), and the Mattole Restoration
Council (Mattole River). In several counties within the range of the
Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast ESU, there are county-based
Resource Conservation Districts (RCDs) that are providing the focus for
agricultural and local conservation groups to use Federal grants to
develop and prioritize restoration plans.
An extensive network of RCDs exists within the range of coho salmon
in the Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast ESU. These RCDs
represent an important vehicle through which the agricultural community
can voluntarily address and correct management practices that impact
coho salmon and its habitat, and their potential is significant.
Working with individual landowners or through organizations such as the
California Farm Bureau, these RCDs can assist landowners in developing
and implementing best management practices that are protective of
salmonids, including coho salmon. NMFS believes that the conservation
and recovery of coho salmon in California will require the active
participation of the agriculture community.
Finding and Withdrawal
Based on its assessment of the best available information, NMFS has
determined that the Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast and the
Oregon Coast coho salmon ESUs constitute distinct ``species'' under the
ESA. NMFS has further determined that the Oregon Coast ESU does not
warrant listing at this time, and that the Southern Oregon/Northern
California Coast ESU does warrant listing as a threatened species.
Accordingly, NMFS is listing the Southern Oregon/Northern California
Coast coho salmon ESU as threatened. NMFS will consider the Oregon
Coast coho salmon ESU to be a candidate species and will review its
listing status in 3 years (or earlier if warranted by new information).
NMFS will publish shortly in the Federal Register protective
regulations, pursuant to ESA section 4(d), which will apply the ESA
section 9(a) prohibitions to the listed ESU, with certain exceptions.
NMFS does not expect those regulations to become effective before July
1, 1997.
Oregon Coast Coho Salmon ESU
Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA provides that the Secretary shall
make a listing determination solely on the basis of the best scientific
and commercial data available, after conducting a review of the
species' status and ``after taking into account those efforts * * *
being made by any state or foreign nation * * * to protect such
species, whether by predator control, protection of habitat and food
supply, or other conservation practices, within an area under its
jurisdiction.'' NMFS has carefully considered the conclusions of the
scientists on NMFS' Biological Review Team (BRT) regarding the species'
status and has taken into account the OCSRI, the NFP and other actions
that protect coho in this ESU.
The scientists on the BRT generally agreed that implementation of
the harvest and hatchery measures of the OCSRI would have a positive
effect on the status of the ESU. Previous harvest rate reductions on
Oregon coastal coho, as refined and continued in the OCSRI, will
continue to contribute to improved spawning escapement and near-term
population stability of the Oregon coast ESU. The BRT expressed the
view that these harvest and hatchery reforms may substantially reduce
the short-term risk of extinction. The BRT was about evenly split as to
whether the effects of these reforms would be substantial enough to
move the ESU out of the ``likely to become endangered'' category. Some
members felt that, in addition to the extinction buffer provided by the
estimated 80,000 naturally produced spawners in 1996, the reforms would
promote higher escapements and alleviate genetic concerns enough that
the ESU would not be at significant risk of extinction or endangerment
in the foreseeable future. Other members were not convinced that the
hatchery and harvest reforms by themselves would be sufficient to
alleviate risk due to declining productivity and habitat degradation.
Habitat degradation was one of the primary concerns of the BRT in
evaluating long-term risks to this ESU. The BRT concluded that while
the harvest and hatchery improvements may substantially reduce the
short-term risk of extinction, habitat protection and restoration are
key to ensuring the long-term survival of the ESU, especially under
variable and unpredictable future climate conditions. There were two
primary concerns with respect to habitat: First, that the habitat
capacity for coho salmon within the range of the ESU has significantly
decreased from historical levels; and, second, that preliminary results
of the Nickelson-Lawson model predicted that, during poor ocean
survival periods, only high quality habitat is capable of sustaining
coho populations, and subpopulations dependent on medium and low
quality habitats would be likely to go extinct. Both of these concerns
caused the BRT to consider risks from habitat loss and degradation to
be relatively high for this ESU.
The previous section of this document describes the Federal NFP and
the OCSRI adopted by Oregon to protect and restore Oregon coastal coho
salmon stocks. The NFP, which covers 35 percent of the geographic range
of this ESU, will provide a high level of protection for coho habitat
into the future. The OCSRI also contains many programs that will
improve habitat conditions. The forest practices regulations adopted by
Oregon in 1995 provide improvements over past practices, and the
measures regarding agricultural practices should result in improvements
in water quality. Overall, however, the habitat measures of the OCSRI
do not currently provide the protections NMFS considers essential to
creating and maintaining the high quality habitat needed to sustain
Oregon Coast coho over the long term across a range of environmental
conditions.
The OCSRI contains the tools necessary to ensure that adequate
habitat measures are ultimately adopted and implemented: a
comprehensive monitoring program, scientific review, and an adaptive
management program. Natural escapement has been increasing markedly in
recent years and reached 80,000 fish in 1996. On the basis of the
harvest and hatchery improvements together with the habitat protections
in the NFP and given the improving trends in escapement, the Oregon
Coast coho is not likely to become endangered in the interval between
this decision and the adoption of improved habitat measures by the
State of Oregon. Under the April 1997 MOA between NMFS and the Governor
of Oregon (MOA, 1997), described in the previous section, NMFS will
propose to Oregon additional forest practices modifications necessary
to provide adequate habitat conditions for coho. If these or other
comparable protections are not adopted within 2 years, NMFS will act
promptly
[[Page 24608]]
to change the ESA status of this ESU to whatever extent may be
warranted.
Because the determination not to list the Oregon Coast ESU relies
heavily on continued implementation of the OCSRI (in accordance with
the MOA), including the enactment of improved habitat protective
measures, NMFS intends to review this listing determination no later
than the conclusion of 3 years (which represents one full life cycle
and 3 year classes of coho salmon) or at any time sooner if substantive
new information warrants consideration. During the interim, NMFS is
designating the Oregon Coast ESU as a candidate species under the ESA
and will continue to monitor the ESU's status as well as the efficacy
of the OCSRI and other conservation measures.
Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast Coho Salmon ESU
Coho salmon populations are very depressed in this ESU, currently
numbering fewer than 10,000 naturally-produced adults. The threats to
this ESU are numerous and varied as described elsewhere in this
document. Several human-caused factors, including habitat degradation,
harvest, and artificial propagation, exacerbate the adverse effects of
natural environmental variability brought about by drought, floods, and
poor ocean conditions. NMFS has determined that existing regulatory
mechanisms over the ESU as a whole are either inadequate or not
implemented well enough to conserve this ESU. While conservation
efforts are underway for some populations in this ESU, particularly in
the Oregon portion of the ESU, they are not considered sufficient to
reduce the risk that the ESU as a whole will become endangered in the
foreseeable future. Accordingly, NMFS concludes that this ESU warrants
listing as threatened. NMFS will issue shortly protective regulations
that will apply the section 9(a) prohibitions to this ESU, with certain
exceptions.
As described in the BRT status reviews (Weitkamp et al., 1995;
NMFS, 1997a) and the proposed listing determination for west coast coho
salmon (July 25, 1995, 60 FR 38011), NMFS defines the Southern Oregon/
Northern California Coast coho salmon ESU to include all naturally
spawned populations of coho salmon (and their progeny) that are part of
the biological ESU and reside below long-term, naturally impassible
barriers in streams between Punta Gorda (CA) and Cape Blanco (OR). NMFS
has also evaluated the status of seven hatchery stocks of coho salmon
presently reared and released within the range of this ESU (NMFS,
1997a). Two of these hatchery stocks from California are either not
considered part of the ESU (Mad River Hatchery) or are of uncertain
relationship to the ESU (Iron Gate Hatchery). In contrast, NMFS has
concluded that fish from four California hatchery populations (Mattole
River, Eel River, Trinity River, and Rowdy Creek) and Oregon's Rogue
River hatchery stock should be included in the definition of this ESU.
None of these five hatchery stocks considered part of this ESU are
presently deemed ``essential'' for its recovery, hence these hatchery
fish are not being listed at this time. However, NMFS has determined
that two of the hatchery populations may play an important role in
recovery efforts: Mattole River, because the natural population is very
depressed, and the Trinity River, because there appears to be
essentially no natural production in the basin. It is important to note
that the determination that a hatchery stock is not ``essential'' for
recovery does not preclude it from playing a role in recovery. Any
hatchery population that is part of the ESU is available for use in
recovery if conditions warrant. In this context, an ``essential''
hatchery population is one that is vital to fully incorporate into
recovery efforts (for example, if the associated natural population(s)
were extinct or at high risk of extinction). Under these circumstances,
NMFS would consider taking the administrative action of listing the
existing hatchery fish.
NMFS' ``Interim Policy on Artificial Propagation of Pacific Salmon
Under the Endangered Species Act'' (58 FR 17573, April 5, 1993)
provides guidance on the treatment of hatchery stocks in the event of a
listing. Under this policy, ``progeny of fish from the listed species
that are propagated artificially are considered part of the listed
species and are protected under the ESA.'' In the case of Oregon's
Rogue River hatchery (Cole Rivers), the protective regulations that
NMFS will issue shortly will exempt take of naturally spawned listed
fish for use as broodstock as part of an overall conservation program.
According to the interim policy, the progeny of these hatchery-wild
crosses would also be listed. NMFS has determined in this case,
however, not to consider hatchery-reared progeny of intentional
hatchery-wild crosses as listed. The Rogue River natural population is
relatively abundant, the take of naturally spawned fish for broodstock
purposes is specifically limited, and the BRT concluded that this
hatchery population was not essential for recovery, nor does it have an
important role to play in recovery. NMFS therefore concludes that it is
not inconsistent with NMFS' interim policy, nor with the policy and
purposes of the ESA, to consider these progeny as part of the ESU but
not listed.
Critical Habitat
Section 4(a)(3)(A) of the ESA requires that, to the extent prudent
and determinable, critical habitat be designated concurrently with the
listing of a species. NMFS has completed its analysis of the biological
status of the Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast ESU but has not
completed the analysis necessary for the designation of critical
habitat. NMFS has decided to proceed with the final listing
determination now and to proceed with the designation of critical
habitat in a separate rulemaking. Section 4(b)(6)(C)(ii) provides that,
where critical habitat is not determinable at the time of final
listing, NMFS may extend the period for designating critical habitat by
not more than 1 additional year. Congress further stated in the 1982
amendments to the ESA, ``where the biology relating to the status of
the species is clear, it should not be denied the protection of the Act
because of the inability of the Secretary to complete the work
necessary to designate critical habitat.'' (H. Rep. No. 567, 97th
Cong., 2d Sess. 19, 1982). NMFS believes that proceeding with this
final listing determination, even though critical habitat has not been
designated, is appropriate and necessary to protect this ESU and is
consistent with congressional direction.
NMFS further concludes that critical habitat is not determinable at
this time, because information sufficient to perform the required
analysis of the impacts of the designation is lacking. NMFS has
solicited information necessary to designate critical habitat in its
proposed rule (60 FR 38011, July 25, 1995) and will consider such
information in the proposed designation. Specifically, designation
requires a determination of those physical and biological features that
are essential to the conservation of the species and that may require
special management considerations or protection. It further requires
the consideration of an economic analysis of the impacts of the
designation. These analyses have not yet been completed, and,
therefore, critical habitat is not determinable at this time. NMFS is
extending the period for the designation of critical habitat by not
more than 1 additional year.
[[Page 24609]]
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or
threatened under the ESA include recognition, recovery actions, Federal
agency consultation requirements, and prohibitions on taking.
Recognition through listing promotes public awareness and conservation
actions by Federal, state, and local agencies, private organizations,
and individuals.
With respect to the Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast coho
salmon ESU, several efforts are underway (described previously) that
may slow or reverse the decline of coho salmon in this ESU. The NMFS
intends to move rapidly during the next year to work with Federal,
state, and tribal entities to develop and implement a comprehensive
strategy to halt the decline and begin the recovery of coho salmon
populations within this ESU. Because a substantial portion of land in
this ESU is in private ownership (approximately 46 percent),
conservation measures on private lands will be key to protecting and
recovering coho salmon in this ESU.
Section 4(d) of the ESA directs the Secretary to implement
regulations ``to provide for the conservation of [threatened]
species,'' that may include extending any or all of the prohibitions of
section 9 to threatened species. Section 9(a)(1)(g) also prohibits
violations of protective regulations for threatened species implemented
under section 4(d). NMFS will issue shortly protective regulations
pursuant to section 4(d) for the conservation of the species.
For listed species, section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires Federal
agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or conduct are
not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or
to destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal
action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the
responsible Federal agency must enter into consultation with NMFS.
Examples of Federal actions most likely to be affected by listing
this ESU include COE section 404 permitting activities under the CWA,
COE section 10 permitting activities under the River and Harbors Act,
FERC licensing and relicensing for non-Federal development and
operation of hydropower, EPA implementation of TMDLs and 303(c) water
quality standards, and NRCS funded activities. These actions will
likely be subject to ESA section 7 consultation requirements that may
result in conditions designed to achieve the intended purpose of the
project and avoid or reduce impacts to coho salmon and its habitat
within the range of the listed ESU.
There are likely to be Federal actions ongoing in the range of the
Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast ESU at the time that this
listing becomes effective. Therefore, NMFS will review all on-going
actions that may affect the listed species with the Federal agencies
and will complete formal or informal consultations, where requested or
necessary, for such actions as appropriate, pursuant to ESA section
7(a)(2).
Sections 10(a)(1)(A) and 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA provide NMFS with
authority to grant exceptions to the ESA's ``taking'' prohibitions (see
regulations at 50 CFR 222.22 through 222.24). Section 10(a)(1)(A)
scientific research and enhancement permits may be issued to entities
(Federal and non-Federal) conducting research that involves directed
take of listed species.
NMFS has issued section 10(a)(1)(A) research or enhancement permits
for other listed species (e.g., Snake River chinook salmon, Sacramento
River winter-run chinook salmon) for a number of activities, including
trapping and tagging to determine population distribution and
abundance, and collection of adult fish for artificial propagation
programs. NMFS is aware of several sampling efforts for coho salmon in
the Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast ESU, including efforts by
Federal and state fisheries agencies, and private landowners. These and
other research efforts could provide critical information regarding
coho salmon distribution and population abundance.
Section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permits may be issued to non-
Federal entities to authorize take of listed species incidental to
otherwise lawful activities. The types of activities potentially
requiring a section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permit include the
operation and funding of hatcheries and release of artificially
propagated fish by the state, state or university research not
receiving Federal authorization or funding, the implementation of state
fishing regulations, and timber harvest activities on non-Federal
lands.
Classification
The 1982 amendments to the ESA, in section 4(b)(1)(A), restrict the
information that may be considered when assessing species for listing.
Based on this limitation of criteria for a listing decision and the
opinion in Pacific Legal Foundation v. Andrus, 675 F. 2d 825 (6th Cir.,
1981), NMFS has categorically excluded all ESA listing actions from the
environmental assessment requirements of NEPA (48 FR 4413, February 6,
1984).
As noted in the Conference Report on the 1982 amendments to the
ESA, economic considerations have no relevance to determinations
regarding the status of the species. Therefore, the economic analysis
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act are not applicable to
the listing process. Similarly, this final rule is exempt from review
under E.O. 12866.
References
The complete citations for the references used in this document can
be obtained by contacting Garth Griffin or Craig Wingert, NMFS (see
ADDRESSES).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 227
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Marine
mammals, Transportation.
Dated: April 25, 1997.
Rolland A. Schmitten,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 227 is amended
as follows:
PART 227--THREATENED FISH AND WILDLIFE
1. The authority citation for part 227 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.
2. In Sec. 227.4, paragraph (i) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 227.4 Enumeration of threatened species.
* * * * *
(i) Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast coho salmon
(Oncorhynchus kisutch). Includes all coho salmon naturally reproduced
in streams between Cape Blanco in Curry County, OR, and Punta Gorda in
Humboldt County, CA.
[FR Doc. 97-11571 Filed 5-5-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
