97-11571. Endangered and Threatened Species; Threatened Status for Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) of Coho Salmon  

  • [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
    
    
    

Document Information

Effective Date:
6/5/1997
Published:
05/06/1997
Department:
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Entry Type:
Rule
Action:
Final rule.
Document Number:
97-11571
Dates:
June 5, 1997.
Pages:
24588-24609 (22 pages)
Docket Numbers:
Docket No. 950407093-6298-03, I.D. 012595A
PDF File:
97-11571.pdf
CFR: (1)
50 CFR 227.4