U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service

WEST 

COAST

REGION

West Coast 

Region

Final ESA Recovery Plan for 

Oregon Coast Coho Salmon

(Oncorhynchus kisutch)

December 2016

ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | iii

Disclaimer

Recovery plans delineate such reasonable actions as may be necessary, based upon the best 

scientific and commercial data available, for the conservation and survival of listed species.

Plans are published by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), sometimes prepared with 

the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, state agencies and others. Recovery plans do not 

necessarily represent the views, official positions or approval of any individuals or agencies 

involved in the plan formulation, other than NMFS. They represent the official position of 

NMFS only after they have been signed by the Assistant or Regional Administrator. Recovery 

plans are guidance and planning documents, not regulatory documents. Identification of a 

recovery action does not create a legal obligation beyond existing legal requirements. Nothing in 

this plan should be construed as a commitment or requirement that any General agency obligate 

or pay funds in any one fiscal year in excess of appropriations made by Congress for that fiscal 

year in contravention of the Anti-Deficiency Act, 31 U.S.C 1341, or any other law or regulation.

Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in 

species status, and the completion of recovery actions.

LITERATURE CITATION SHOULD READ AS FOLLOWS: 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2016. Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho 

Salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit. National Marine Fisheries Service, West Coast Region, 

Portland, Oregon 

ADDITIONAL COPIES MAY BE OBTAINED FROM: 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

Oregon/Washington Coastal Office 

1201 NE Lloyd Blvd Suite 1100

Portland, OR 97232

503 230-5442

Or on the web at: 

http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/protected_species/salmon_steelhead/recovery_planning

_and_implementation/oregon_coast/oregon_coast_salmon_recovery_domain.html

Cover photo courtesy of NOAA Fisheries.

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | iv

This page intentionally left blank.

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | v

Acknowledgements

The Oregon Coast Coho ESA Recovery Plan represents the dedicated effort of numerous

people over many years. The National Marine Fisheries Service would like to thank the

individuals, organizations, and agencies listed below (alphabetically) for their contributions to

this plan.

Recovery Plan Primary Author

Rob Walton – NMFS, West Coast Region, Oregon Washington Coastal Office

NMFS Contributors and Reviewers

Andrew Addessi – NOAA Fisheries, West Coast Region 

Charlotte Ambrose – NOAA Fisheries, West Coast Region

Robert Anderson – NOAA Fisheries, West Coast Region

Annie Birnie – NOAA Fisheries, West Coast Region

Haley Blake (Lutz) – Student Intern with NOAA Fisheries

Brian Cluer – NOAA Fisheries, West Coast Region

Therese Conant– NOAA Fisheries, Office of Protected Resources

Tom Cooney – NOAA Fisheries, Northwest Fisheries Science Center

Donna Darm – NOAA Fisheries, West Coast Region

Mike Ford – NOAA’s Northwest Fisheries Science Center

Megan Hilgart – NOAA Fisheries Restoration Center

Chris Jordan – NOAA’s Northwest Fisheries Science Center

Kim Kratz, NOAA Fisheries, West Coast Region

Lance Kruzic, NOAA Fisheries, West Coast Region

Irma Lagomarsino, NOAA Fisheries, West Coast Region

Pete Lawson – NOAA’s Northwest Fisheries Science Center

Jeff Lockwood - NOAA Fisheries, West Coast Region

Sheila Lynch – NOAA Office of the General Counsel

Martha McCoy – NOAA Office of the General Counsel

Michelle McMullin – NOAA Fisheries, West Coast Region

Jim B. Muck – NOAA Fisheries, West Coast Region

Shivonne Nesbit – NOAA Fisheries, West Coast Region

Ken Phippen – NOAA Fisheries, West Coast Region

Scott Rumsey – NOAA Fisheries, West Coast Region

Gina Schroeder – NOAA Fisheries West Coast Region

Alix Smith – NOAA Fisheries, West Coast Region

Maggie Smith – NOAA Fisheries, Office of General Counsel

Heather Stout – NOAA’s Northwest Fisheries Science Center

Barbara Taylor – NOAA Fisheries contractor

Tom Wainwright – NOAA’s Northwest Fisheries Science Center

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | vi

Laurie Weitkamp – NOAA’s Northwest Fisheries Science Center

Chuck Wheeler – NOAA Fisheries, West Coast Region

Jeff Young – NOAA Fisheries, West Coast Region

Other Contributors and Reviewers

Kyle Abraham – Oregon Department of Forestry

Kara Anlauf-Dunn – Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

Jamie Anthony – Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

Lauri Aunan – Oregon Governor’s Office

Dan Avery – Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

Brett Brownscombe – Oregon Governor’s Office

John Byers – Oregon Department of Agriculture

Judith Callens – Oregon Department of Agriculture

Renee Davis – Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board

Kevin Goodson – Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

Mike Gray– Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

Ray Jaindl – Oregon Department of Agriculture

Kim Jones – Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

Mark Lewis– Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

Mark Meleason – Oregon Department of Forestry

Meta Loftsgaarden – Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board

Bruce McIntosh – Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

Eric Metz – Oregon Department of State Lands

Kelly Moore – Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

Amanda Punton – Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development

Jim Rue – Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development

Bill Ryan – Oregon Department of State Lands

Tom Stahl – Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

Barbara Taylor – Contract Scientist, writer, editor

Lena Tucker – Oregon Department of Forestry

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon |vii

Contents

Disclaimer.................................................................................................................................iii

Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................. v

Contents ..................................................................................................................................vii

List of Figures ..........................................................................................................................xi

List of Tables..........................................................................................................................xiii

Acronyms and Abbreviations ................................................................................................xv

Glossary of Terms and Definitions......................................................................................xvii

Plan Summary.......................................................................................................................S-1

1. Background....................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Purpose of Recovery Plan ............................................................................................. 1-1

1.2 Overview ....................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.3 Context of Plan Development ........................................................................................ 1-4

1.4 How We Intend to Use the Plan..................................................................................... 1-8

1.5 Tribal Trust Responsibilities........................................................................................... 1-9

1.6 Other Species that Could Benefit from this Plan .......................................................... 1-10

2. Description of Species and Habitat ......................................................................2-1

2.1 Geographical Setting ..................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 Description of Oregon Coast Coho Salmon ................................................................... 2-1

2.2.1 Historical and Current Abundance............................................................................................2-2

2.2.2 Life History...............................................................................................................................2-4

2.2.3 Population Structure of Oregon Coast Coho Salmon ...............................................................2-7

2.2.4 Hatchery Release of Coho Salmon in the ESU.........................................................................2-9

2.2.5 Critical Habitat Designation....................................................................................................2-10

3. Threats Assessment and Listing Factors ............................................................3-1

3.1 Background: Threats and Limiting Factors..................................................................... 3-1

3.2 Factors that Led to Listing of Oregon Coast Coho Salmon ............................................ 3-2

3.3 How the ESA Listing Factors Currently Affect ESU Status............................................. 3-5

3.3.1 Factor A. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the species’

habitat or range..................................................................................................................................3-6

3.3.2 Factor B: Over-utilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes....

.........................................................................................................................................................3-19

3.3.3 Factor C: Disease or predation...............................................................................................3-20

3.3.4 Factor D: The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms.............................................3-22

3.3.5 Factor E. Other natural or human-made factors affecting the species’ continued existence......

.........................................................................................................................................................3-30

4. Recovery Goals and Delisting Criteria for the Oregon Coast Coho Salmon ESU

.....................................................................................................................................4-1

4.1 Endangered Species Act Requirements ........................................................................ 4-1

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon |viii

4.2 Biological Recovery Criteria........................................................................................... 4-4

4.2.1 Background: General Framework for Describing Viable (Sustainable) Salmon Populations..4-4

4.2.2 Biological Recovery Criteria for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon.................................................4-6

4.3 ESA Listing Factors Criteria........................................................................................... 4-9

4.3.1 Background: The ESA Listing Factor Criteria..........................................................................4-9

4.3.2 Criteria for Assessing the Listing Factors and ESU Status.....................................................4-10

4.4 Making a Listing Determination Considering the Biological Status and the Five Listing 

Factors .............................................................................................................................. 4-18

4.4.1 Biological Status and Threats Review ....................................................................................4-18

4.4.2 Applying the Delisting Framework for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon .....................................4-19

5. Current Status Relative to Recovery Goals .........................................................5-1

5.1 Current Status of Oregon Coast Coho Salmon ESU...................................................... 5-2

5.1.1 Northwest Fisheries Science Center Findings from 2015 Status Update..................................5-2

5.1.2 Summary of Current Status.......................................................................................................5-4

5.2 Closing the Gap between ESU Current Status and Recovery........................................ 5-8

6. Recovery Strategies and Actions .........................................................................6-1

6.1 Assumptions.................................................................................................................. 6-2

6.2 Recovery Strategies and Actions at the ESU Level........................................................ 6-5

6.2.1 ESU Level Strategies and Actions to Improve Habitat (Listing Factors A and D) at the ESU 

level....................................................................................................................................................6-5

6.2.2 ESU-wide Strategy and Actions to Address Overutilization (Listing Factors B and D) ........6-24

6.2.3 ESU-Level Strategy and Actions to Address Predation and Disease (Listing Factors C and D)...

.........................................................................................................................................................6-24

6.2.4 ESU-level Strategy and Actions to Address Other Issues (Listing Factors E and D).............6-26

6.3 Recovery Strategies and Actions at the Stratum Level (Listing Factors A and D) ........ 6-30

6.3.1 Strategies and Actions for the North Coast Stratum...............................................................6-30

6.3.2 Strategies and Actions for the Mid-Coast Stratum..................................................................6-35

6.3.3 Strategies and Actions for the Lakes Stratum.........................................................................6-42

6.3.4 Strategies and Actions for the Umpqua Stratum.....................................................................6-48

6.3.5 Strategies and Actions for the Mid-South Coast Stratum .......................................................6-54

6.4 Potential Effectiveness of Management Actions and Need for Life- Cycle Evaluations 6-62

7. Estimates of Time and Costs ................................................................................7-1

7.1 Time Estimates.............................................................................................................. 7-1

7.2 Cost Estimates .............................................................................................................. 7-2

8. Implementation.......................................................................................................8-1

8.1 NMFS Role in Recovery Implementation ....................................................................... 8-1

8.2 Role of State Agencies in Recovery Plan Implementation ............................................. 8-5

8.3 Role of Other Federal Agencies in Recovery Plan Implementation................................ 8-8

8.4 Role of Non-Governmental Organizations ................................................................... 8-10

8.5 Examples of Successful Cross-Jurisdictional Public-Private Partnerships ................... 8-10

8.6 Implementation and Oversight ..................................................................................... 8-13

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon |ix

8.7 Conclusion................................................................................................................... 8-14

9. Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation and Adaptive Management...................9-1

9.1 Overview of Adaptive Management and RME Needs ..................................................... 9-1

9.2 Guidance for Adaptive Management and RME............................................................... 9-4

9.3 Adaptive Management and RME for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon Recovery................. 9-5

9.3.1 Implement the OCCCP Adaptive Management and RME Programs.......................................9-5

9.3.2 Develop life-cycle model to identify and assess potential factors that could limit sustainability 

of Oregon Coast coho salmon, including effects under current climate change projection scenarios....

...........................................................................................................................................................9-6

9.3.3 Management Questions, Draft Hypotheses and Recommendations to Help Guide Oregon Coast 

Coho RME and Adaptive Management.............................................................................................9-6

10. Literature Cited...................................................................................................10-1

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon |x

This page intentionally left blank.

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon |xi

List of Figures

Figure S-1. Map of Oregon Coast Coho Salmon ESU, populations and strata. .....................S-1

Figure S-2. Comparison of historical (1892–1956) and recent (1958–2015) estimates of 

spawner abundance and pre-harvest recruit.........................................................S-2

Figure S-3. Oregon Coast coho salmon life cycle. .................................................................S-3

Figure S-4. Examples of bad and good freshwater rearing habitat for Oregon Coast coho 

salmon..................................................................................................................S-9

Figure 1-1. Map of the Oregon Coast Coho Salmon ESU showing biogeographic strata and 

independent populations. ..................................................................................... 1-3

Figure 1-2. NMFS West Coast Region Recovery Domains................................................... 1-7

Figure 2-1. Comparison of historical (1892–1956) and recent (1958–2015) estimates of

spawner abundance and pre-harvest recruits........................................................ 2-3

Figure 2-2. Estimated number of naturally produced adult Oregon Coast coho salmon (1950 

to 2015). ............................................................................................................... 2-4

Figure 2-3. Hierarchical population structure within ESA-listed ESUs, as identified by the 

ONCC TRT.......................................................................................................... 2-9

Figure 3-1. Increase in selected human impacts during the last 300 years............................. 3-5

Figure 3-2. Comparison of the total spawner abundance for the mid-coast stratum to the 

number of smolts reported for the Mill Creek (Yaquina), Mill Creek (Siletz) and 

Cascade Creeks, 1995-2012............................................................................... 3-10

Figure 3-3. Water quality limited waters and 303(d) listed waters in Northern Oregon Coastal 

Basin. ................................................................................................................. 3-11

Figure 3-4. Water quality limited waters in Southern Oregon Coastal Basins..................... 3-12

Figure 3-5. Oregon fish passage barriers for Oregon Coast coho salmon............................ 3-15

Figure 3-6. Tidal habitat gains and losses in the Oregon Coast Recovery domain .............. 3-17

Figure 3-7. The BRT’s conceptual diagram showing pathways by which climate influences

the salmon life cycle .......................................................................................... 3-33

Figure 4-1. Components of a listing determination................................................................ 4-3

Figure 5-1. Estimated abundance of native spawners by strata for Oregon Coast coho salmon, 

1995-2015 ............................................................................................................ 5-3

Figure 5-2. Status and trends of Viable Salmonid Population parameters and listing factors for 

Oregon Coast coho salmon at the time of listing................................................. 5-5

Figure 5-3. Status and trends of Viable Salmonid Population parameters and listing factors for 

Oregon Coast coho salmon at the time of 2016 five-year status review ............. 5-6

Figure 6-1. Relationships between human activities, watershed processes and fish response....

.............................................................................................................................. 6-7

Figure 6-2. Step-by-step approach to restoring riverine processes and habitats through an 

adaptive management process............................................................................ 6-13

Figure 9-1. The Adaptive Management Cycle. ...................................................................... 9-2

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon |xii

This page intentionally left blank.

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon |xiii

List of Tables

Table S-1. Primary ESU-level threats and limiting factors for Oregon Coast coho salmon....S-6

Table 2-1. Conventional Understanding of Life History of Coho Salmon by Month.............. 2-5

Table 2-2. Classification of Oregon Coast Coho Salmon ESU historical populations............ 2-8

Table 2-3. Types of sites and essential physical and biological features for anadromous 

salmonids, and the life stage each supports.......................................................... 2-11

Table 3-1. Summary of how human-made and natural factors (underlying causes) contributed 

to listing of Oregon coast coho salmon................................................................... 3-3

Table 3-2. Primary and secondary limiting factors within remaining habitat for independent 

populations.............................................................................................................. 3-7

Table 3-3. TMDLs Issued or Being Developed in the Oregon Coast Coho Salmon Area .... 3-14

Table 3-4. Stream habitat conditions in Oregon Coast Coho Salmon ESU over time........... 3-18

Table 3-5. Summary of effects of physical climate changes on Oregon Coast coho salmon by

habitat type............................................................................................................ 3-35

Table 4-1. Framework for considering the biological and listing factors for Oregon Coast coho 

salmon................................................................................................................... 4-20

Table 4-2. Characterization of how we evaluated the criteria leading to a “moderate risk of 

extinction” and threatened status determination in 2011...................................... 4-21

Table 4-3. The strongest case for delisting would be if we had ‘complete certainty’ that the 

biological status and all the listing factors met their respective goals and protective 

efforts were effective. ........................................................................................... 4-22

Table 4-4. Hypothetical characterization of how NMFS might delist ................................... 4-23

Table 4-5. Hypothetical characterization of combinations of how NMFS could delist......... 4-24

Table 5-1. Characterization of the current assessment of the biological status and elements of 

the delisting criteria incorporating the 2016 5-Year Status Review....................... 5-7

Table 6-1. Steps in developing habitat strategies and actions for Oregon Coast coho salmon.....

............................................................................................................................... 6-23

Table 6-2. Summary of habitat restoration types and their ability to ameliorate climate change 

effects on peak flows, low flows, stream temperature, or to increase salmonid 

population resiliency............................................................................................. 6-28

Table 6-3. Summary of Potential Recovery Strategies by Listing Factor.............................. 6-29

Table 6-4. Habitat component specific actions to restore high quality coho salmon habitat in 

the North Coast Stratum........................................................................................ 6-33

Table 6-5. Habitat component specific actions to restore high quality coho salmon habitat in 

the Mid-Coast Stratum.......................................................................................... 6-38

Table 6-6. Habitat component specific actions to restore high quality coho salmon habitat in 

the Lakes Stratum. ................................................................................................ 6-46

Table 6-7. Habitat component specific actions to restore high quality coho salmon habitat in 

the Umpqua Stratum. ............................................................................................ 6-51

Table 6-8. Habitat component specific actions to restore high quality coho salmon habitat in 

the Mid-South Coast Stratum. .............................................................................. 6-57

Table 7-1. 2007 Estimates of three time-frame and cost scenarios under which habitat 

improvement work may be conducted across the ESU, by population, to achieve the 

desired status goal for the ESU............................................................................... 7-5

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon |xiv

Table 8-1. State of Oregon Natural Resource Agency Programs that Contribute to Coast Coho 

Salmon Recovery.................................................................................................... 8-6

Table 8-2. Federal Programs that Contribute to Coast Coho Salmon Recovery...................... 8-8

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon |xv

Acronyms and Abbreviations

APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (part of the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture)

AQI

BLM

Aquatic Inventories Project

Bureau of Land Management

BOEM Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

BMP Best Management Practice

BRT Biological Review Team

BLM U.S. Bureau of Land Management

CCC Central California Coast Coho

CLAMS Coastal Landscape Analysis and Modeling Study

CREP Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program

CWA Clean Water Act

CWHIP Coho Winter High Intrinsic Potential Habitat

CZARA Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments

DPS Distinct Population Segment

DSL Department of State Lands

DSS Decision Support System

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ES ESU Sustainability

ESA Endangered Species Act

ESU Evolutionary Significant Unit

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

FMEP Fishery Management Evaluation Plan

FMP Forest Management Plan

FRN Federal Register Notice

HGMP Hatchery Genetic Management Plan

HIP High Intrinsic Potential

HLFM Habitat Limiting Factors Model

HQH High Quality Habitat

IMST Independent Multidisciplinary Team

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

NIS Non-Indigenous Species

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA Fisheries)

NRCS National Resources Conservation Service

NWFP Northwest Forest Plan

NWFSC Northwest Fisheries Science Center

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon |xvi

NWR Northwest Region (of NOAA Fisheries) (Merged with Southwest Region to form 

West Coast Region on 10/1/13)

OC coho Oregon Coast Coho Salmon

OCCS Oregon Coast Coho Salmon

OCCCP Oregon Coast Coho Conservation Plan

OCMPS Oregon Coast Multi-Species Plan

ONCC TRT Oregon/Northern California Coasts Technical Recovery Team

ODA Oregon Department of Agriculture

ODF Oregon Department of Forestry

ODFW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

ODLCD Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development

ODOGAMI Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries

ODOT Oregon Department of Transportation

ODSL Oregon Department of State Lands

OFPA Oregon Forest Practices Act

OGNRO Oregon Governor’s Natural Resources Office

OPI Oregon Product Index

OWEB Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board

PCSRF Pacific Coast Salmon Recovery Funds

PDO Pacific Decadal Oscillation

PECE Policy for Evaluating Conservation Efforts

PFMC Pacific Fisheries Management Council

PHOS Percent of Hatchery Origin Spawners

PNI Proportion of Natural Influence

PNOS Percent of Natural Origin Spawners

PVA Population Viability Analysis

RMA Riparian Management Areas

RME Research, Management and Evaluation

SAP Strategic Action Plan

SONCC Southern Oregon/Northern Coast Coho Salmon

STEP Salmon and Trout Enhancement Program

SWCD Soil and Water Conservation Districts

SWR Southwest Region (of NOAA Fisheries)

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load

TRT Technical Recovery Team 

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USFS U.S. Forest Service

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

VSP Viable Salmonid Populations

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon |xvii

Glossary of Terms and Definitions

Abundance The number of fish in a population. See also population.

Adaptive Management Adaptive management in salmon recovery planning is a method of 

decision making in the face of uncertainty. It is a process for adjusting 

actions and/or direction based on new information. A plan for 

monitoring, evaluation, and feedback is incorporated into an overall 

implementation plan so that the results of actions can become feedback 

on design and implementation of future actions.

Amendment 13 A key element in the Pacific Fishery Management Council’s Pacific Coast 

Salmon Fishery Management Plan that guides fisheries management for 

Oregon Coast coho salmon. 

Anadromous Fish Species that are hatched in freshwater, migrate to and mature in salt 

water, and return to freshwater to spawn.

Artificial Propagation Hatchery spawning and rearing of salmon, usually to the smolt stage.

AUC For area under the curve. A statistical technique for estimating an annual 

total number of spawners from periodic spawner counts. See also 

spawner.

Barrier A blockage such as a waterfall, culvert, or rapid that impedes the 

movement of fish in a stream system.

Beaver Dam Analogues Human-made, channel-spanning structures that mimic or reinforce 

beaver dams (Pollock et al. 2015).

Broad Sense Recovery Goal Goals defined in the recovery planning process, in this case by the state 

of Oregon, that go beyond the requirements for delisting under the ESA, 

to address, for example, other legislative mandates or social, economic, 

and ecological values.

Biological Review Team The team of scientists who evaluate scientific information for National 

Marine Fisheries Service status reviews.

Catastrophic Events Sudden events that disastrously alter large areas of landscape. These can 

include floods, landslides, forest fires, and volcanic eruptions.

Channel Gradient The slope of a stream reach.

Co-managers Federal, state, and tribal agencies that cooperatively manage salmon in 

the Pacific Northwest.

Critical Habitat Critical habitat includes: (1) specific areas within the geographical area 

occupied by the species at the time of listing, on which are found those 

physical or biological features that are essential to the conservation of 

the listed species and that may require special management 

considerations or protection, and (2) specific areas outside the 

geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing that are 

essential for the conservation of a listed species. If a species is listed or 

critical habitat is designated, ESA section 7(a) (2) requires federal 

agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are 

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon |xviii

not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of such a species or to 

destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat (NMFS 2008).

Delisting Removing a species from the endangered species list.

Delisting Criteria Criteria incorporated into ESA recovery plans that define both biological 

viability (biological criteria) and alleviation of the causes for decline 

(listing factor criteria based on the five listing factors in ESA section 4[a] 

[1]), and that, when met, would result in a determination that a species 

is no longer threatened or endangered and can be proposed for removal 

from the Federal list of threatened and endangered species. These 

criteria are a NMFS determination and may include both technical and 

policy considerations.

Demographic Risk Risks to a small population resulting from population processes such as 

depensation or chance events in survival or reproductive success.

Density Effects Survival of juvenile salmon may be influenced by their density. Survival is 

usually higher when density is low.

Dependent Populations Populations that rely on immigration from surrounding populations to 

persist. Without these inputs, dependent populations would have a 

lower likelihood of persisting over 100 years.

Depensation The effect where a decrease in spawning stock leads to reduced survival 

or production of eggs through either (1) increased predation per egg 

given constant predator pressure, or (2) the allee effect (a positive 

relationship between population density and the reproduction and 

survival of individuals) with reduced likelihood of finding a mate.

Direct Threats Human activities or natural events (e.g., road building, floodplain 

development, fish harvest, hatchery influences, and volcanoes) that 

immediately degrade recovery goals or objectives (See threats and 

indirect threats). 

Diversity All the genetic and phenotypic (life history, behavioral, and 

morphological) variation within a population. Variations could include 

anadromy vs. lifelong residence in freshwater, fecundity, run timing, 

spawn timing, juvenile behavior, age at smolting, age at maturity, egg 

size, developmental rate, ocean distribution patterns, male and female 

spawning behavior, physiology, molecular genetic characteristics, etc.

DNA For deoxyribonucleic acid. A complex molecule that carries an 

organism’s heritable information. The two types of DNA commonly used 

to examine genetic variation are mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), a circular 

molecule that is maternally inherited, and nuclear DNA, which is 

organized into a set of chromosomes. See also electrophoresis.

DPS (Distinct Population 

Segment)

A distinct population segment (DPS) is a listable entity under the ESA 

that meets tests of discreteness and significance according to USFWS 

and NOAA Fisheries policy. A population is considered distinct (and 

hence a ‘species’ for purposes of conservation under the ESA) if it is 

discrete from and significant to the remainder of its species based on 

factors such as physical, behavioral, or genetic characteristics, it occupies 

an unusual or unique ecological setting, or its loss would represent a 

significant gap in the species’ range. See also ESU.

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon |xix

DSS (Decision Support 

System)

For decision support system (DSS). A computer application that assists 

users in using data and models to solve problems. It typically links and 

analyzes many pieces of data or models at a variety of scales, producing 

results that aid in decision making rather than replacing human 

judgment.

Ecoregion An integration of physical and biological factors such as geologic history, 

climate, and vegetation.

Ecosystem A complex system, or group, of interconnected elements and processes 

and functions, formed by the interaction of a community of organisms 

with their environment

Electrophoresis The movement of charged particles in an electric field. This process has 

been developed as an analytical tool to detect genetic variation revealed 

by charge differences on proteins or molecular weight in DNA. See also 

DNA.

Endangered Species A species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range. See also ESA and threatened species.

Endangered Species Act Passed by Congress in 1973, its purposes include providing a means to 

conserve the ecosystems on which endangered species and threatened 

species depend. See also endangered species and threatened species.

Escapement Usually refers to adult fish that escape from fisheries and natural 

mortality to reach the spawning grounds.

Estuarine Habitat Areas available for feeding, rearing, and smolting in tidally influenced 

lower reaches of rivers. These include marshes, sloughs and other 

backwater areas, tidal swamps, and tide channels.

Evolutionarily Significant 

Unit 

An Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) represents a distinct population 

segment of Pacific salmon that (1) is substantially reproductively isolated 

from conspecific populations and (2) represents an important 

component of the evolutionary legacy of the species. Equivalent to a 

distinct population segment (DPS) and treated as a species under the 

Endangered Species Act.

Exploitation Rate The proportion of adult fish from a population that die as a result of 

fisheries.

Extinction The loss of a species or ESU; may also be used for the extirpation of local 

populations.

Factors for Decline Factors identified that caused a species to decrease in abundance and 

distribution and become threatened or endangered.

Fecundity The number of offspring produced per female over her lifetime.

Flashy A term that describes a river that is prone to reach high peak discharge 

in a short time frame and be more likely to flood. 

Floodplain A nearly flat plain along the course of a stream or river that is naturally 

subject to flooding, or using geological terms, a depositional landform in 

alluvial basins.

Hydrologic units In the U.S. Geological Survey, hydrologic units have been divided at 

different scales. The area of a fourth-field hydrologic unit is 440,000 

acres and a fifth-field hydrologic unit is between 40,000 and 250,000 

acres.

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon |xx

Freshwater Habitat Areas available for spawning, feeding, and rearing in freshwater.

Fry Young salmon that have emerged from the gravel and no longer have a 

yolk sack.

Full Seeding In general, full seeding refers to having enough spawners to fully occupy 

available juvenile habitat with offspring. As applied in fisheries 

management for Oregon Coast coho salmon, it refers to habitat quality 

sufficient for spawners to replace themselves when marine survival is 3 

percent and is based on early models of juvenile rearing capacity. 

Gene Conservation Group Management area defined by Kostow (1995) to conserve genetic 

diversity in Oregon Coast coho salmon. See also monitoring area.

Genetic Bootstrap Support A measure of the confidence in a particular branch in a genetic tree. 

Specifically a large number of trees are created using randomly drawn 

sets of loci sampled from the data with replacement. The bootstrap 

value for a node is the proportion of the trees that have all the samples 

contained on that node.

Goals We use the term goals to refer to broad, formal statements of the longterm condition we seek to achieve (see objectives).

Gradient The slope of a stream segment.

Habitat Quality The suitability of physical and biological features of an aquatic system to 

support salmon in the freshwater and estuarine system.

Hatchery A facility where artificial propagation of fish takes place.

Historical Abundance The number of fish produced before the influence of European 

settlement.

Habitat Trends Working 

Group 

A joint group formed by NWFSC and ODFW and composed of scientists 

from each agency, with contributions by statisticians from the EPA and 

Oregon State University.

Hydrology The distribution and flow of water in an aquatic system.

IMST For Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team. A scientific advisory 

body to the Oregon legislature and governor on watershed, forestry, 

agriculture, and fisheries science issues.

Independent Population A collection of one or more local breeding units whose population whose 

dynamics or extinction risk over a 100-year period is not substantially 

altered by exchanges of individuals with other populations (migration). 

Functionally independent populations are net donor populations that 

may provide migrants for other types of populations. This category is 

analogous to the independent populations of McElhany et al. (2000).

Integrated Hatchery A hatchery program, such as in the case of the Cow Creek Hatchery 

Program, where wild coho salmon are regularly taken into the hatchery 

program’s brood stock. Typically more than 10 percent of the brood 

stock annually is of wild fish origin. In some years, 100 percent of the 

brood stock is wild fish.

Indirect Threats Human activities or natural events that drive, allow, or encourage direct 

threats – also referred to as ‘root causes’ of habitat degradation. See 

threats and direct threats. 

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon |xxi

Intrinsic Potential The estimated relative suitability of a habitat for spawning and rearing of 

anadromous salmonid species under historical conditions inferred from 

stream characteristics including channel size, gradient, valley constraint, 

and mean annual discharge of water. Intrinsic potential in this report 

refers to a measure of potential coho salmon habitat quality. This index 

of potential habitat does not indicate current actual habitat quality.

Isolation The degree to which a population is unaffected by migration to and from 

other populations. As the influence of migration decreases, a 

population’s isolation increases.

Jack A male coho salmon that matures at age-2 and returns from the ocean 

to spawn a year earlier than normal.

Juvenile A fish that has not matured sexually.

Keystone Species A species that plays a pivotal role in establishing and maintaining the 

structure of an ecological community. The impact of a keystone species 

on the ecological community is more important than would be expected 

based on its biomass or relative abundance.

Landsat For land remote-sensing satellite. The satellites supply global land 

surface images and data.

Limiting Factors Impaired physical, biological, or chemical features (e.g., inadequate 

spawning habitat, high water temperature, insufficient prey resources) 

that result in reductions in viable salmonid population (VSP) parameters 

(abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity).

Listed Species Species included on the List of Endangered and Threatened Species, 

authorized under the Endangered Species Act and maintained by the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NMFS.

Listing Factors From section 4(a) (1) of the ESA, the five listing factors are: A. The 

present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the 

species’ habitat or range. B. Over-utilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational purposes. C. Disease or predation 

D. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms E. Other natural or 

human-made factors affecting the species’ continued existence

Lowland Habitat Low gradient stream habitat with slow currents, pools, and backwaters 

used by fish. This habitat is often converted to agricultural or urban use.

Marine Survival Rate The proportion of smolts entering the ocean that return as adults. 

Metacercaria Tiny cysts that contain the intermediate stages of parasites. 

Metrics Something that quantifies a characteristic of a situation or process; for 

example, the number of natural-origin salmon returning to spawn to a 

specific location is a metric for population abundance.

Microsatellite A class of repetitive DNA used for estimating genetic distances.

Migrant A fish that is born in one population but returns to another population to 

spawn.

Migration Movement of fish from one population to another.

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon |xxii

Migration Rate The proportion of spawners that migrate from one population to 

another. See also stray rate.

Monitoring Area ODFW’s monitoring areas are similar to but not identical to gene 

conservation groups. Additional information online at 

http://nrimp.dfw.state.or.us/crl/default.aspx?pn=AIProjOrPlnSalWtrshd

Morphology The form and structure of an organism, with special emphasis on 

external features.

Naturally Produced Fish Fish that were spawned and reared in natural habitats, regardless of 

parental origin. See also wild fish.

Natural Return Ratio (NRR) The ratio N/T, where N is naturally produced spawners in one generation 

and T is total (hatchery produced + naturally produced) spawners in the 

previous generation.

Objectives We use the term objectives to refer to formal statements of the 

outcomes (or intermediate results) and desired changes that we have 

identified as necessary to attain the goals. Objectives specify the desired 

changes in the factors (direct and indirect threats and opportunities) that 

we would like to achieve in the short and medium-term “A good 

objective meets the criteria of being results oriented, measurable, time 

limited specific, and practical.0F

1

”

OCSRI For Oregon Coastal Salmon Restoration Initiative, which is now the 

Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds. A plan established by the state 

of Oregon in 1997 to restore salmon runs, improve water quality, and 

achieve healthy watersheds and strong communities throughout the 

state.

Open Standards Developed by the Conservation Measures Partnership, this is a publicly 

available approach to project design, management, and monitoring in 

order to help practitioners improve the practice of conservation, meant 

to describe the general process necessary for the successful 

implementation of conservation projects.1F

2

Parasite Prevalence The number of hosts infected with one or more individuals of a 

particular parasite species (or taxonomic group) divided by the number 

of hosts examined for that parasite species.

Parr The life stage of salmonids that occurs after fry and is generally 

recognizable by dark vertical bars (parr marks) on the sides of the fish.

PDO For Pacific Decadal Oscillation. A long-term pattern of Pacific Ocean 

climate variability, with events lasting 20 to 30 years and oscillating 

between warm and cool regimes.

PECE Criteria Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When Making Listing 

Decisions’ (PECE) criteria are used in assessing the extent to which 

habitat-related limiting factors and threats have been reduced or 

eliminated.

Persistent Population A population that is able to persist (i.e., not go extinct) over a 100-year 

period without support from other populations. This includes an ability 

to survive prolonged periods of adverse environmental conditions, which 

may be expected to occur at least once in the 100-year time frame.

1 Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation.

2 Conservation Measures Partnership: Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation from Version 3.0 (April 2013).

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016

 
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon |xxiii

Phenology The science dealing with the influence of climate on the recurrence of 

annual phenomena of animal and plant life (including the migration of 

salmon).

Phenotype Any observable characteristic of an organism, such as its external 

appearance, development, biochemical or physiological properties, or 

behavior.

Piscivorous Fish that eat other fish.

PIT Tag For passive integrated transponder tag. An injectable, internal, radiotype tag that allows unique identification of a marked fish passing within 

a few inches of a monitoring site.

Population A group of fish of the same species that spawns in a particular locality at 

a particular season and does not interbreed substantially with fish from 

any other group. See also abundance.

Population Classification The grouping of populations into functionally independent, potentially 

independent, and dependent classes.

Population Dynamics Changes in the number, age, and sex of individuals in a population over 

time, and the factors that influence those changes. Five components of 

populations that are the basis of population dynamics are birth, death, 

sex ratio, age structure, and dispersal.

Population Identification Delineating the boundaries of historical populations.

Population Structure Includes measures of age, density, and growth of fish populations.

Potentially Independent A high-persistence population whose population dynamics are 

substantially influenced by periodic immigration from other populations. 

In the event of the decline or disappearance of migrants from other 

populations, a potentially independent population could become a 

functionally independent population.

Practicable Capable of being put into practice or of being done or accomplished: 

feasible.

Production The number of fish produced by a population in a year.

Productivity The rate at which a population is able to produce fish, such as the 

average number of surviving offspring per parent. Productivity is used as 

an indicator of a population’s ability to sustain itself or its ability to 

rebound from low numbers. The terms ‘population growth rate’ and 

‘population productivity’ are interchangeable when referring to 

measures of population production over an entire life cycle. Can be 

expressed as the number of recruits (adults) per spawner or the number 

of smolts per spawner.

Protective Efforts Section 4(b) of the ESA states in part: “The Secretary shall make 

determinations required by subsection (a)(1) solely on the basis of the 

best scientific and commercial data available to him after conducting a 

review of the status of the species and after taking into account those 

efforts, if any, being made by any State or foreign nation, or any political 

subdivision of a State or foreign nation, to protect such species, whether 

by predator control, protection of habitat and food supply, or other 

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon |xxiv

conservation practices, within any area under its jurisdiction, or on the 

high seas.” While this requires the USFWS and NMFS “to take into 

account all conservation efforts being made to protect a species, the 

Policy for the Evaluation of Conservation Efforts when making listing 

decisions2F

3 identifies criteria (the agencies) will use in determining 

whether formalized conservation efforts that have yet to be 

implemented or to show effectiveness contribute to making listing a 

species as threatened or endangered unnecessary. The policy applies to 

conservation efforts identified in conservation agreements, conservation 

plans, management plans, or similar documents developed by Federal 

agencies, State and local governments, Tribal governments, businesses, 

organizations, and individuals.”3F

4

Recovery The reestablishment of a threatened or endangered species to a selfsustaining level in its natural ecosystem (i.e., to the point where the 

protective measures of the ESA are no longer necessary).

Recovery Domain An administrative unit for recovery planning defined by NMFS based on 

ESU boundaries, ecosystem boundaries, and existing local planning 

processes. Recovery domains may contain one or more listed ESUs. 

Recovery Plan A document identifying actions needed to make populations of naturally 

produced fish comprising the OCCS ESU sufficiently abundant, 

productive, and diverse so that the ESU as a whole will be self-sustaining 

and will provide environmental, cultural, and economic benefits. A 

recovery plan also includes goals and criteria by which to measure the 

ESU’s achievement of recovery, site-specific management actions as may 

be necessary to achieve the plan’s goal, and an estimate of the time and 

cost required to carry out the actions.

Recovery Scenario Sequence of events expected to lead to recovery of Oregon coast coho 

salmon.

Redd A nest constructed by female salmonids in streambed gravels where 

eggs are fertilized and deposited.

Resilience A measure of the ability of a population or ESU to rebound from shortterm environmental or anthropogenic perturbations.

Run Timing The time of year (usually identified by week) when spawning salmon 

return to the spawning beds.

Salmonid Fish belonging to, or characteristic of, of the family Salmonidae, which 

includes salmon, steelhead, trout, char, and whitefish.

Section 7 This term is often used in reference to Section 7 (a) (2) of the 

Endangered Species Act; it directs each Federal agency to consult with 

NMFS (or USFWS) 

Significant Biological significance refers to an effect that has a noteworthy impact 

on health or survival.

Smolt A life stage of juvenile salmon that occurs just before the fish leaves 

freshwater. Smolting is the physiological process that allows salmon to 

make the transition from freshwater to salt water.

3 http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/FR-2003-03-28/03-7364 4 68FR15100

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016

 
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon |xxv

Smolt Capacity The maximum number of smolts a basin can produce. Smolt capacity is 

related to habitat quantity and quality.

Spawner Adult fish on the spawning grounds. 

Spawner Survey Effort to estimate the number of adult fish on spawning grounds. It uses 

counts of redds and fish carcasses to estimate escapement and identify 

habitat. Annual surveys can be used to compare the relative magnitude 

of spawning activity between years.

Species Biological definition: A group of organisms formally recognized by the 

scientific community as distinct from other groups. Legal definition: 

refers to joint policy of the USFWS and NMFS that considers a species as 

defined by the ESA to include biological species, subspecies, and DPSs. In 

this Plan, ‘the species’ refers to the Oregon Coast coho salmon ESU.

Stakeholders Agencies, groups, or private citizens with an interest in recovery 

planning, or those who will be affected by recovery planning and actions.

Strata The plural form of stratum. Refers to a grouping, more than one 

individual stratum. 

Stratum A group of salmonid populations that is geographically and genetically 

cohesive. The stratum is a level of organization between 

demographically independent populations and the ESU or DPS.

Stray Rate As used in this document, stray rate refers to the number of spawning 

adults that return to a stream other than their natal stream within a 

basin. See also migration rate.

Sustainability An attribute of a population that persists over a long period of time and 

is able to maintain its genetic legacy and long-term adaptive potential for 

the foreseeable future.

Sustainable Population A population that, in addition to being persistent, is also able to maintain 

its genetic legacy and long-term adaptive potential for the foreseeable 

future. ‘Sustainable’ implies stability of habitat availability and other 

conditions necessary for the full expression of the population’s (or ESU’s) 

life history diversity into the foreseeable future. As used in this plan, 

sustainable and sustainability are the same, or nearly the same, as viable 

and viability. For clarity, after we introduce both terms, we use the term 

sustainable in place of viable, except where it used in a quote or other 

specific application of the TRT or BRT such as viable salmonid population.

Technical Recovery Team A Technical Recovery Teams (TRT) convened by NMFS to develop 

technical products related to recovery planning. The TRT establishes 

biologically based ESA recovery goals for listed salmonids within a given 

recovery domain. Members serve as science advisors to the recovery 

planning phase. Planning forums unique to specific states, tribes, or 

regions may use TRT and other technical products to identify recovery 

actions.

Threats Human activities or natural events (e.g., road building, floodplain 

development, fish harvest, hatchery influences, and volcanoes) that 

cause or contribute to limiting factors. Threats may exist in the present 

or be likely to occur in the future.

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon |xxvi

Threatened Species A species not presently in danger of extinction, but likely to become so in 

the foreseeable future. See also endangered species and ESA.

Valley Constraint The valley width available for a stream or river to move between valley 

slopes.

Viable, Viability The likelihood that a population will sustain itself over a 100-year time 

frame. As used in this plan, viable and viability are the same, or nearly 

the same, as sustainable and sustainability.

Viability Criteria Criteria defined by NOAA Fisheries-appointed Technical Recovery Teams 

based on the biological parameters of abundance, productivity, spatial 

structure, and diversity, which describe a viable salmonid population 

(VSP) (an independent population with a negligible risk of extinction over 

a 100-year time frame) and which describe a general framework for how 

many and which populations within an ESU should be at a particular 

status for the ESU to have an acceptably low risk of extinction. See SCA 

section 7.3 for a discussion of how TRT information is considered in 

these Biological Opinions.

Viable Salmonid Population A viable salmonid population (VSP) is an independent population of any 

Pacific salmonid (genus Oncorhynchus) that has a negligible risk of 

extinction due to threats from demographic variation, local 

environmental variation, and genetic diversity changes (random or 

directional) over a 100-year time frame.

Warm-water Fish Spiny-rayed fish such as sculpins, minnows, darters, bass, walleye, 

crappie, and bluegill that generally tolerate or thrive in warm water.

Wild Fish Fish whose ancestors have always lived in natural habitats, that is, those 

with no hatchery heritage. See also naturally produced fish.

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon |S-1

Oregon Coast Coho Salmon Recovery Plan 

Summary

Introduction 

Oregon Coast coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) are protected under the Endangered Species 

Act (ESA). The fish spawn and rear in rivers, streams, and lakes along Oregon’s coastline, from 

the Necanicum River near Seaside on the north to the Sixes River near Port Orford on the south 

(Figure S-1). NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) first listed Oregon Coast coho 

salmon as a threatened species under the ESA in 1998. NMFS relisted the species in 2008 and 

reaffirmed the listing in 2011. 

This recovery plan (Plan) provides guidance to 

improve the viability of the species to the point 

that it meets the delisting criteria and no longer 

requires ESA protection. Under ESA direction, 

we need to resolve threats to the species and 

ensure the long-term persistence of naturally selfsustaining populations in the wild. 

Recovery direction for Oregon Coast coho 

salmon has one central overriding theme: to 

protect and restore the freshwater and estuarine 

rearing habitats that support juvenile survival 

and overall productivity.

The Plan builds on past and current efforts to 

restore the coho salmon. In particular, this plan 

calls for continued actions to repair the ecosystem 

processes that influence the health and stability of 

the rearing habitats for juvenile coho salmon. The 

actions will also benefit many other fish and 

wildlife species, and could provide aid to land 

owners and local communities Figure S-1. Map of Oregon Coast Coho Salmon ESU,

populations and strata (larger population groupings).

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon |S-2

Perspective: Past and Current Coho Salmon Runs

During the 1800s and early 1900s, strong runs of coho salmon returned each year to rivers and 

lakes along the Oregon coast. State and federal scientists estimate that one to two million adult 

coho salmon returned during periods of favorable ocean conditions, often creating concentrations 

of several hundred spawners per mile in coastal rivers. These mighty runs supported commercial 

and recreational fisheries, and helped anchor local economies up and down the coast, but began to 

decline in the mid-1900s and the total number of returning native coho salmon dropped to below 

14,600 fish in 1983. The native coho salmon runs then improved for a few years before declining 

again to near 21,000 fish in 1990 and to below 24,000 fish in 1997 (See Figure S–2). The decline 

led NMFS to list the fish under the ESA in 1998; attributing the species’ decline to multiple factors: 

high harvest rates, high hatchery production, significantly degraded habitat, and periods of poor 

ocean conditions. 

Today, thanks largely to improvements made by multiple parties over the last twenty years, more 

native coho salmon return to the Oregon Coast than at the time of listing ─ though annual returns 

fluctuate greatly with variable ocean conditions. Recent native coho salmon returns hit modernera highs of over 350,000 spawners in 2011 and 2014, but slumped to lows of 99,000 spawners in 

2012 and, most recently, to 57,000 spawners in 2015 (ODFW 2016). These sharp fluctuations 

indicate that positive Oregon Coast coho salmon abundance trends are tied largely to favorable 

marine survival, which can change quickly, creating uncertainty about whether recent levels of 

abundance can be retained, especially since recent projections by NMFS’ Northwest Fisheries 

Science Center (NWFSC) indicate that a new period of poor ocean conditions is possible, which 

could result in reduced ocean survival rates and decreased sustainability. This suggests that more 

actions are needed to ensure the species is sustainable and no longer needs ESA protection.

Figure S-2. Comparison of historical (1892–1956) and recent (1958–2015) estimates of spawner abundance and preharvest recruits. Horizontal dotted lines are the geometric mean recruits for 1892–1940 and 1960–2009. Analysis based on 

data from Cleaver 1951, Mullen 1981a, and Mullen 1981b; recent data from Wainwright et al. 2008 and ODFW 2016. 

Dark line is one interpretation of the long-term trend.

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon |S-3

Oregon Coast Coho Salmon and Habitat

Pacific coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) are a wideranging species that spawns in rivers and rear in streams 

and estuaries around the Pacific Rim from Monterey Bay 

in California north through the Aleutian Islands to Point 

Hope, Alaska; and from the Anadyr River in Russia south 

to Korea and northern Hokkaido, Japan.

The Oregon Coast coho salmon evolutionarily significant 

unit (ESU) includes the Pacific Ocean and the freshwater 

and estuarine habitat (rivers, streams and lakes) along the 

Oregon Coast from the Necanicum River on the north to 

the Sixes River on the south. Rivers in the ESU flow from 

the mountains of the Coast Range, with the exception of 

the Umpqua River, which extends east through the Coast Range to drain the Cascade Mountains. 

Most of the rivers transition to estuaries before reaching the Pacific Ocean. 

Oregon Coast Coho Salmon Life Cycle

The anadromous life cycle for coho salmon begins in their home stream, normally a small tributary 

with moderate to low gradient stream reaches. After emerging from the gravel, the small fish seek 

cool, slow moving stream reaches with quiet areas such as backwater pools, beaver ponds, and 

side channels. Juveniles generally spend one summer and a winter in these rearing areas before 

migrating towards the ocean as smolts in the spring, typically from late April until early June.

Migration strategies are an important feature of life history diversity. Coho salmon smolts may be 

present in estuaries for a period of weeks to a month or more during their migration to the ocean. 

They seek out low-salinity 

gradients during their stay in the 

estuaries where they can grow 

and slowly acclimate to saltwater. 

They also reside in shallow areas, 

side channels, and plumes of

freshwater extending offshore at 

varying times of the year. 

Most adult coho salmon return to 

natal tributaries from September 

to November as 3-year-old fish, 

after spending two summers in 

the ocean (Figure S-3). The early 

ocean life is believed to be a 

critical time for the fish since 

significant marine mortality can 

occur during the first two weeks 

to months of ocean life. 

What is an evolutionarily significant 

unit (ESU)?

An ESU is a group of Pacific salmon 

that is (1) substantially reproductively 

isolated from other groups of the same 

species and (2) represents an 

important component of the 

evolutionary legacy of the species. 

ESUs are defined based on geographic 

range as well as genetic, behavioral 

and other traits. 

Figure S-3. Oregon Coast coho salmon life cycle.

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon |S-4

Endangered Species Act Requirements

The ESA requires NMFS to develop and implement plans for the conservation and survival of 

species listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA. This Plan provides the required 

information. It describes (1) measureable criteria which, when met, will result in a determination 

that the species be removed from the list; (2) site-specific management as may be necessary to 

achieve the Plan’s goal for conservation and survival of the species; and (3) estimates of the time 

required and cost to carry out the actions. It also describes threats and factors that affect the species. 

 

Scientific Foundation of Recovery Plan

The recovery plan is based on the best available science about the Oregon Coast coho salmon ESU. 

It builds on the work of the Oregon/ Northern California Coasts Technical Recovery Team, a team 

of scientists from NMFS, states, tribes, and academic institutions. The team identified the historical 

populations comprising the species, as well as the larger groupings ‘strata’ that combine 

populations with geographic and genetic similarities within the ESU (See Figure S-1).

The team also recommended biological recovery criteria that evaluate two general conditions that 

imply different levels of risk: Persistence, the ability of the ESU to persist over a 100-year period 

without artificial support; and Sustainability, the ability of the ESU to maintain its genetic legacy 

and long-term adaptive potential for the foreseeable future. The criteria were used to evaluate six 

measures of population, stratum and ESU health: spawner abundance, spawner distribution, 

juvenile distribution, critical abundance, population productivity, and artificial influence. 

Recovery Goals and Delisting Criteria

The Plan (Chapter 4) provides recovery goals and criteria that NMFS will use in future reviews of 

the status of the Oregon Coast coho salmon ESU. 

ESA Recovery Goal: Our primary goal is that the ecosystems upon which Oregon Coast coho 

salmon depend are conserved such that the ESU is sustainable and persistent and no longer needs 

federal protection under the ESA. 

Delisting Criteria: In the simplest terms, NMFS will remove the ESU from ESA listing when we 

determine that:

• The species has achieved a biological status consistent with recovery ─ the best available 

information indicates it has sufficient abundance, population growth rate, population 

spatial structure, and diversity to meet its biological recovery goal.

• Factors that led to ESA listing (described in Chapter 3) have been reduced or eliminated to 

the point where federal protection under the ESA is no longer needed, and there is 

reasonable certainty that the relevant regulatory mechanisms are adequate to protect 

Oregon Coast coho salmon sustainability. 

The biological recovery criteria include two principle elements for ESA recovery: 

• Most of the independent populations have to be sustainable in each stratum. 

• All five strata have to be sustainable for the whole ESU to be sustainable.

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon |S-5

Threats and Limiting Factors Analysis

Federal and state scientists used a substantial body of technical research and data about Oregon 

Coast coho salmon to identify threats and limiting factors that have hindered the species’ ability 

to be naturally self-sustaining. This section summarizes findings discussed in Chapter 3 regarding 

key factors that led to the species’ decline and continue to affect it today. 

Factors Leading to ESA Listing

In 1998, NMFS determined that many human activities 

had contributed to the decline of the ESU to threatened 

status: “For coho salmon populations in Oregon, the 

present depressed condition is the result of several 

longstanding, human-induced factors (e.g., habitat 

degradation, water diversions, harvest, and artificial 

propagation) that serve to exacerbate the adverse 

effects of natural environmental variability from such 

factors as drought, floods, and poor ocean conditions.” 

Subsequent status reviews found that risks posed by 

hatchery fish and fisheries had been greatly remedied, 

however, continued uncertainty remained about the 

ESU’s long-term status due to persisting threats from 

habitat degradation and climate change that were 

predicted to degrade in the future (NMFS 1998; Good 

et al. 2005; Stout et al. 2012). 

Factors Affecting ESU Status Today

Today, Oregon Coast coho salmon are primarily affected by threats that reduce the quantity and 

quality of coho salmon rearing habitat. Reviews by NMFS’ biological review teams in 2011 and 

2015 found that the long-term decline in Oregon Coast coho salmon productivity reflected 

deteriorating conditions in freshwater habitat, and that the remaining habitat may not be high 

enough to sustain the species productivity during cycles of poor ocean conditions (NWFSC 2015; 

Stout et al. 2012). 

Primary Limiting Factors:

1. Reduced amount and complexity of habitat. Loss of 

stream complexity, including connected 

floodplain habitat, is a primary limiting factor 

for many coho salmon populations and 

overwinter rearing of juvenile coho salmon is 

especially a concern. This instream habitat is 

critical to produce high enough juvenile 

survival to sustain productivity, particularly 

during periods of poor ocean conditions. 

Habitat conditions that create sufficient complexity for juvenile rearing and overwintering 

include large wood debris structures, pools, connections to side channels and off-channel 

What are threats and limiting factors?

Threats are human activities or natural

events, such as floodplain development or 

drought, which cause or contribute to limiting 

factors. 

The term ‘threats’ carries a negative 

connotation, but they are often legitimate and 

necessary human activities that at times may 

have unintended negative consequences on 

fish. The activities can be managed to 

minimize or eliminate the negative impacts.

Limiting factors are biological and physical 

conditions and related ecological processes 

and interactions that limit a species’ viability. 

Primary limiting factors have the greatest 

impacts on a population’s ability to reach the 

desired status. Stresses, a term used in a 

common framework approach to ecosystem 

management, are ecological attributes that 

have been altered and limit a species’ 

viability. 

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon |S-6

alcoves, beaver ponds, lakes, and connections to wetlands, backwater areas and complex 

floodplains. Many of these habitat conditions are maintained through connection to the 

surrounding landscape. Beaver provide considerable help in providing this connection and 

in maintaining proper watershed functioning in Oregon coast streams.

2. Degraded water quality. Reduced water quality, including high water temperatures and 

increased fine sediment levels affect coho salmon production in several populations. 

Increased water temperature is the primary source of water quality impairment for Oregon 

Coast coho salmon, and rising water temperatures due to climate change could add to this 

problem. Land use activities have contributed to increased water temperatures in coastal 

streams by removing riparian vegetation, disconnecting streams from floodplains, and 

reducing streamflow through water diversions 

3. Blocked/impaired fish passage. There has been extensive reduction in connectivity and access 

to historical estuarine and freshwater coho salmon habitats. This has been the results of 

two primary sources: (a) Fish passage blocked or partially blocked by culverts, tidegates, 

bridges, dams, dikes, and levees and (b) the loss of estuarine and tidal habitats. 

4. Uncertainty that there is an adequate combination of voluntary and regulatory mechanisms to ensure 

success. Along with numerous voluntary efforts, several federal, state, and local regulatory 

mechanisms protect Oregon Coast coho salmon and their habitat. Currently it is unclear 

that the existing voluntary and regulatory mechanisms are adequate to protect habitat 

conditions that conserve the long-term sustainability of the species. 

Coho salmon populations in coastal lake areas and some lower stream reaches are also affected 

by predation from introduced warm-water fishes such as smallmouth and largemouth bass, and in 

some cases from birds and marine mammals. Concerns posed by summer water temperatures and 

predation may increase in the future due to climate change. 

Table S-1. Primary ESU-level threats and limiting factors for Oregon Coast coho salmon.

Threat Primary Limiting factors Current level of Concern

Historical, current and future land use 

activities that affect watershed functions that 

support coho habitat

Loss of stream complexity High

Degraded water quality High

Blocked/hindered passage High

Overharvest of OC coho salmon in ocean 

and freshwater tributaries 

Reduced abundance and productivity due to 

harvest mortality Low

Disease and increase in parasites Reduced productivity due to increased 

infection Low

Predation from birds, marine mammals and 

warm water fishes Reduces coho abundance and productivity Medium

Ineffective regulatory mechanisms Inadequate long-term habitat protection High

Hatchery operations and releases Competition, predation and reduced diversity Low

Changes in ocean conditions Reduced fitness and survival, thereby 

abundance and productivity High

Climate change Further habitat degradation and thereby 

productivity Medium- High

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon |S-7

Recovery Strategy ─ Conservation Partnerships

Our recovery strategy for Oregon Coast coho salmon focuses on restoring and conserving the 

ecosystems upon which the species depend so the ESU is naturally self-sustaining and persistent 

in the wild and no longer needs federal protection under the ESA. We will also continue to 

participate with partners to ensure that fisheries and hatcheries are managed to protect Oregon 

Coast coho salmon.

Since ESA listing, the status of Oregon Coast coho salmon has improved. The most recent status 

review update of the ESU (NWFSC 2015) determined that there is a moderate certainty that the 

ESU is now sustainable. Nevertheless, it is NMFS’ opinion that the current strengthened status of 

the Oregon Coast coho salmon populations is primarily due to a combination of reduced harvest 

and hatchery production and high marine survival. Based on the best available science, we remain 

concerned that the current quality (especially temperature) and quantity of freshwater habitats 

leaves the ESU at risk of becoming an endangered species, particularly if global climate change 

leads to a long-term downward trend in freshwater and marine coho salmon habitat compared to 

current conditions. Thus, we recommend that efforts continue to protect and restore freshwater and 

estuarine habitat.

The Plan (Chapter 6) provides a suggested roadmap to address remaining threats to the species’ 

viability. It describes alternate routes (strategies and actions) to get to recovery, but also calls for 

refinement of actions through collaboration because there is no one ‘right’ way to get success. In 

particular, the strategy promotes the creation of partnerships that integrate the needs of coho 

salmon with the needs of local communities and stakeholders. We intend to support partnerships

with landowners, businesses, non-governmental and governmental entities, and others to shape 

practicable solutions that fit the long-term recovery of the species while also supporting sustainable 

communities in coastal Oregon and meeting the needs of local residents. For more than twenty 

years, voluntary actions by state, federal, and local organizations and individuals have been 

improving habitat access and conditions in many areas. The Plan builds upon and complement 

these efforts.

NMFS’ overall recovery direction for Oregon Coast coho salmon centers on restoring degraded 

habitats and the ecosystem processes and functions that affect those habitats, and protecting 

habitats that are currently functioning through an effective combination of voluntary and 

regulatory programs. The primary focus is to protect and restore freshwater and estuarine rearing 

habitats upon which egg-to-smolt survival, and overall productivity, depends. We also recommend 

continued, and enhanced, monitoring (as resources are available) to gain critical information about 

the factors that affect the fish, or may affect the fish given climate change, and to quantify net 

changes in key habitat features in response to implemented actions. 

Strategies to Improve Habitat ─ Developing Scientifically Sound, Coordinated Approaches

Coho salmon recovery demands the application of well-formulated, scientifically sound 

approaches. The Plan identifies several key steps to improve and protect habitats:

1. Restore watershed and estuarine processes to increase rearing habitat quality and capacity.

Natural watershed-level and reach-level physical and biological processes form the habitat 

features that salmon need. The habitat strategy promotes actions that address the root 

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon |S-8

causes of ecosystem impairment, such as by re-establishing floodplain connectivity. High 

quality overwintering habitat for juvenile fish is almost always found in areas where the 

stream is low gradient and connected with its floodplains. This habitat shelters the fish from 

high velocity flows and usually contains one or more of the following features: connected 

floodplains and wetlands with attached off-channel alcoves, beaver dams and ponds, lakes, 

and channels with large wood and debris and deep pools. High quality summer-rearing 

habitat contains many of the same features as winter rearing habitat, but foremost provides 

refuge from high summer water temperatures. (See Figure S-4.)

2. Ensure long-term ecosystem functions and high quality habitat by reducing habitat-related threats 

and encouraging formation of beaver dams and beaver dam analogues.

High quality juvenile rearing habitat for coho salmon is a reflection of stream and estuarine 

complexity, which is shaped by several combined watershed processes that influence 

hydrologic, sediment, riparian, channel, biological, floodplain and estuarine habitat 

functions. NMFS supports using a collaborative process to enhance the effectiveness of 

voluntary programs and ensure that regulatory backstop mechanisms and other approaches 

are in place to protect natural watershed-scale and reach-scale physical and biological 

processes and functions, such as the re-establishment of connected floodplain habitats. 

3. Improve and recover the species through a common framework and innovative partnerships.

NMFS aims to strengthen partnerships with governmental and nongovernmental 

organizations, landowners, and others to encourage collaboration toward recovery and 

conservation of Oregon Coast coho salmon populations. We recommend a common 

framework used in population level plans to provide an integrated, strategic approach that 

directs and coordinates voluntary efforts to improve key watershed processes and habitats 

so they effectively support recovery goals for individual coho salmon populations and 

ESU. 

4. Implement an adaptive management process to track progress toward recovery, monitor and evaluate 

key information needs, assess results, and refine strategies and actions accordingly.

Adaptive management plays a key role in the recovery strategy for Oregon Coast coho 

salmon. The strategy requires a process to track progress, define uncertainties and 

weaknesses, and adjust our course appropriately. Our strategy includes collaborations to 

develop a step-by-step approach to define watershed- or population-level strategies and 

actions that will integrate the best available science. 

Management Actions

Several site-specific management actions are generally applicable to restore degraded habitats and 

the ecosystem processes and functions that support those habitats across the ESU. 

Voluntary actions. Protection and restoration of salmon habitat will only be accomplished if the 

people who call the area home make that a priority. We encourage and support conservation work 

by private landowners, local groups, and others to improve ecological processes and habitats, 

particularly in areas with the greatest potential to create high quality coho salmon rearing habitat. 

Regulatory actions. An important element in our plan is to integrate voluntary and regulatory efforts 

to address indirect threats ─ the roots causes of ecosystem impairment. We need to be confident

that regulatory backstops ensure compliance with adequate laws and regulations to provide habitat

conditions that can support a sustainable ESU. 

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon |S-9

Research, monitoring and evaluation actions. Continuing the effective research, monitoring and 

evaluation efforts will be critical to success. In particular, we will continue to work with partners 

to develop the most cost-effective means to monitor the status and trends of habitat conditions.

In summary, NMFS’ recovery direction for Oregon Coast coho salmon focuses on turning 

degraded habitat into good habitat, and protecting habitats that are currently functioning. As 

illustrated in Figure S-4, improving bad salmon habitat centers on restoring the ecosystem 

processes and functions that affect those habitats. 

Figure S-4. Examples of bad and good freshwater rearing habitat for Oregon Coast coho salmon.

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon |S-10

Implementation

Ultimately, recovery of Oregon Coast coho salmon depends on the commitment and dedicated 

actions of the many individuals and entities who share responsibility for the stewardship of the 

species’ future, and NMFS looks forward to partnering with them in a collaborative effort. The 

recovery of Oregon Coast coho salmon will depend on the collaboration of partners at the regional, 

state, ESU, population, and watershed levels. 

Chapter 8 proposes an integrated public-private implementation approach to achieve Oregon Coast 

coho salmon recovery. As discussed earlier, we need to restore and protect freshwater habitats to 

improve the overall status of the species in the face of anticipated future reductions in marine 

survival associated with climate change. Accomplishing this goal can be accomplished through a 

combination of successful locally supported voluntary programs, with regulatory backstops. 

Supporting partnerships among stakeholders can help shape practicable solutions that fit the longterm recovery of the species while also supporting sustainable communities in coastal Oregon. 

NMFS encourages efforts to enhance voluntary 

conservation programs, create new innovative voluntary 

incentive programs, and improve the effectiveness of 

existing regulatory programs. Together, such programs 

would help halt the net loss of juvenile coho salmon rearing 

habitat and create additional juvenile rearing habitat. 

We will continue to work with agencies, tribes, and local 

stakeholders to implement coordinated and collaborative 

programs and projects. In particular, the Plan anticipates 

the development of the Coho Business Plan (a publicprivate partnership described in Chapter 8) and population-level Strategic Action Plans, which 

will serve as a nexus between federal, state and local efforts. We will also actively partner with 

Oregon to integrate implementation of this recovery plan with related state efforts, and work to 

align federal programs that provide technical and financial assistance and regulatory assurances 

to private landowners where possible.

Time and Cost Estimates

NMFS estimates that if the strategies and actions identified in this Plan are implemented in a timely 

manner, and marine survival is not too low, we will be able to delist Oregon Coast coho salmon 

within the next 10 years. However, we recognize that the time needed to recover the species under 

the ESA depends on near-term conditions (marine and freshwater), the types of actions and rate of 

implementation, and how effectively the actions address remaining limiting factors and threats.

Based on current expenditure levels, NMFS estimates the cost of recovery for the next five and 

ten years to be approximately $55 million and at approximately $110 million to achieve recovery. 

This depends greatly on the ability to target habitat restoration activities to areas where the greatest 

gains can be made in improving winter and summer rearing habitats, and on success in providing 

the regulatory backstops to protect coho salmon habitat over the long term. Chapter 7 discusses 

our time and cost estimates. 

Photo courtesy of Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership.

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 1-1

1. Background

This is an Endangered Species Act (ESA) recovery plan (or Plan) for Oregon Coast coho salmon

(or OC coho salmon), an Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus 

kisutch). The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), a branch of the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), first listed Oregon Coast coho salmon as a threatened 

species under the ESA on August 10, 1998 (63 FR 42587). It retained this threatened listing for 

the species on June 20, 2011 following several federal court cases, biological reviews, and listing 

determinations (76 FR 35755).

1.1 Purpose of Recovery Plan

NMFS’ primary goal is to improve the viability of the Oregon Coast coho salmon ESU to the 

point that the species has met the delisting criteria and no longer requires protection under the 

Endangered Species Act. The recovery plan also supports federal efforts to fulfill obligations to 

Northwest Indian tribes, as well as aiming to support efforts to achieve broader ecological, 

social, economic, and cultural goals identified by the state of Oregon that surpass ESA recovery 

and delisting. 

The recovery plan provides guidance for the recovery of the species. NMFS developed the Plan 

pursuant to section 4(f) of the Endangered Species Act. The ESA requires NMFS to develop 

recovery plans for species listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA. Under the ESA, 

recovery plans identify actions needed to resolve the threats to the species and ensure selfsustaining populations in the wild.

Recovery plans serve as advisory documents and provide a roadmap for species recovery based 

on the best information available at the time. They lay out where we need to go and how best to 

get there, and they can help prioritize limited resources. Although recovery plans are guidance 

documents rather than regulatory documents, the ESA envisions recovery plans as the central 

organizing tool for guiding each species’ recovery process.

As directed by ESA section 4(f)(1)(B), the recovery plan includes: (1) a description of sitespecific management actions that may be necessary to achieve the Plan’s goal for the 

conservation and survival of the species; (2) objective, measurable criteria, which, when met, 

would result in a determination that the species be removed from the threatened and endangered 

species list; and (3) estimates of the time required and the cost to carry out those measures 

needed to achieve the Plan’s goal and to achieve intermediate steps toward that goal.

1.2 Overview

Historically, rivers that drain into the ocean and lakes along the Oregon coast supported

abundant and healthy runs of coho salmon. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 

(ODFW) estimated that pre-development (circa 1850) coho salmon runs to the Oregon Coast 

coho salmon ESU may have been in the range of one to two million fish during periods of 

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 1-2

favorable ocean conditions (ODFW 2007). The runs began to decline in the mid-1900s, primarily

due to overharvest by fisheries, a period of poor ocean conditions, and watershed habitat 

degradation as timber harvest and agricultural activities expanded. In 1983, the total number of 

native spawners was down to 14,600 (ODFW 2016) and in 1997 the total population (preharvest) was down to 26,200 (ODFW 2016). The sharp decline in Oregon Coast coho salmon led 

to the first petitioning of the ESU for listing in 1993 (NMFS 1993). This petitioning triggered a 

series of actions to stop the species decline and restore its viability. These actions to restore the 

fish populations continue today.

The listed ESU for Oregon Coast coho salmon covers much of the Oregon coast along the 

Pacific Ocean (Figure 1-1). It includes all freshwater habitat (rivers, streams, and lakes) from the 

Necanicum River near Seaside on the north coast to the Sixes River near Port Orford on the 

south. Several large river systems in this area support Oregon Coast coho salmon, including the 

Nehalem, Nestucca, Salmon, Siletz, Tillamook Bay, Yaquina, Alsea, Siuslaw, Coos, Coquille, 

and Umpqua River systems (Figure 1-1). The ESA-listed ESU also includes artificially produced 

coho salmon from the Cow Creek (South Umpqua) Hatchery Program.

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 1-3

Figure 1-1. Map of the Oregon Coast Coho Salmon ESU showing biogeographic strata and independent populations.

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 1-4

1.3 Context of Plan Development 

This recovery plan contains the work and contributions of federal, state, and local agencies and 

other stakeholders with interests in Oregon Coast coho salmon and their habitats. Through the

collaborative process of developing this Plan, NMFS aimed to effectively address ESA goals 

while respecting local interests and needs based on social, economic, and ecological values.

Consequently, we developed this ESU-level recovery plan in the context of other processes that 

relate to the Oregon Coast coho salmon ESU and the habitat upon which they depend. These 

related processes involved ODFW and other state agencies, regional stakeholder teams within 

Oregon, other federal agencies, tribal and local governments, representatives of industry and 

environmental groups, and the public. Our resulting ESU-level recovery plan synthesizes related 

information from:

1. The Oregon Coast Domain Workgroup of the Oregon and Northern California Coasts 

Technical Recovery Team (ONCC TRT),

2. NOAA Fisheries’ Oregon Coast Coho Biological Review Team (BRT) and Northwest 

Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC) staff,

3. The Oregon Coast Coho Conservation Plan (OCCCP) and iterative process employed by 

the state of Oregon and NMFS to develop that plan (see discussion below),

4. The Oregon Coast Multi-Species Plan (OCMSP) (completed in June, 2014),

5. Non-governmental organizations and local habitat restoration efforts, and

6. Other federal agencies and the state of Oregon.

The Plan recognizes the long history of listing determinations for Oregon Coast coho salmon 

under the ESA. The status of the ESU has been reviewed repeatedly since the early 1990s.

Oregon Coast coho salmon were first petitioned for listing in 1993. NMFS listed the species as 

threatened under the ESA in 1998. Considerable litigation has surrounded the listing status of the 

species since then, and the species’ listing has changed between ‘not warranted for listing’ and 

‘threatened’ several times. NMFS called on its biological review team to review the status of the 

species in 2009 and, based on this review, retained the species’ listed status in 2011. A more 

recent status review update completed in 2015 (NWFSC 2015) found that while some aspects of 

the species’ status have improved, the listing remains warranted. The chronology in Text Box 1-

1 provides an overview of this history.

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 1-5

Text Box 1-1. Chronological History of Oregon Coast Coho Salmon ESA-Listing Determination

May 2016 NMFS issues 2016 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation of Oregon Coast Coho Salmon

July 2013 NMFS files notice to prepare recovery plan to Oregon Coast Coho salmon. 

June 2012 NMFS issues ESA status review for Oregon Coast coho salmon.

June 2011 NMFS retains ESA threatened status of Oregon Coast coho salmon.

May 2010 NMFS proposes to retain ESA threatened status of Oregon Coast coho salmon.

April 2009 NMFS initiates ESA status review of Oregon Coast coho salmon.

February 2008 In accordance with court opinion, NMFS lists Oregon Coast coho salmon as threatened under ESA. 

NMFS designates critical habitat for Oregon Coast coho salmon.

October 2007 U.S. District Court in Oregon invalidates January 2006 decision not to list Oregon Coast coho salmon.

March 2007 ODFW issues its Oregon Coast Coho Conservation Plan (OCCCP).

June 2006 Trout Unlimited et al. challenges NMFS’ decision not to list.

January 2006 NMFS concludes that Oregon Coast coho salmon are ‘not likely to become endangered’ in foreseeable future 

and decides against listing them under ESA; agency withdraws ESA listing proposal.

June 2005 NMFS releases final ESA hatchery listing policy and announces six-month extension on listing determination for 

Oregon Coast coho salmon.

May 2005 Oregon releases final report of its Coastal Coho Assessment, concluding Oregon Coast coho salmon are viable 

and likely to persist into foreseeable future

February 2005 NMFS requests public review and comment on Oregon’s draft Coho Project Report.

June 2004 NMFS formally proposes to list Oregon Coast coho salmon as ‘threatened’ under ESA and issues draft hatchery 

policy.

October 2003 Oregon begins Coastal Coho Project to evaluate effectiveness of Oregon Plan at recovering Oregon Coastal 

coho salmon; state and NMFS work jointly on project.

November 2002 NMFS convenes Oregon Coast coho salmon technical recovery team to develop biologically based delisting 

criteria and recovery goals, and serve as science advisors to recovery planning.

July 2002 NMFS responds to ESA petition to redefine Oregon Coast coho salmon population.

February 2002 NMFS initiates ESA status review of West Coast salmon, including Oregon Coast coho salmon.

November 2001 NMFS begins developing new hatchery policy to address issues raised in U.S. District Court decision and says it 

will apply new policy to all West Coast ESA-listed salmon and steelhead.

September 2001 Alsea Decision, U.S. District Court in Oregon finds that ESA does not allow NMFS to split a salmon ESU into two 

components -- hatchery and wild -- and then list only one of those components; functional effect of ruling is to 

delist Oregon Coast coho salmon.

August 1998 NMFS lists Oregon Coast coho salmon as threatened under ESA.

June 1998 U.S. District Court for Oregon rules that ‘not warranted’ determination for Oregon Coast coho salmon is arbitrary 

and capricious, saying ESA does not let NMFS consider biological effects of future or voluntary conservation 

measures

May 1997 NMFS determines Oregon coast coho salmon is ‘not warranted’ for listing under the ESA based in part on 

Oregon’s conservation measures contained in the plan.

March 1997 Oregon completes its Salmon Initiative Plan and submits it to NMFS.

October 1995 Oregon embarks on its Coastal Salmon Restoration Initiative to conserve and restore coastal salmon and 

steelhead.

July 1995 NMFS proposes to list Oregon Coast coho salmon as threatened under ESA.

October 1993 NMFS receives petition from Pacific Rivers Council and 22 others requesting the agency list Oregon Coast coho 

salmon under ESA.

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 1-6

Relationship to Oregon Coast Coho Conservation Plan 

Early in 2004, NMFS embarked with the state of Oregon in a collaborative process to develop a 

plan to conserve coastal coho salmon populations on the Oregon Coast. This process, which led 

to the development of the Oregon Coast Coho Conservation Plan (OCCCP or conservation plan), 

involved significant participation by diverse public and interest group representatives 

(stakeholder team), state agency representatives (core team), and scientists with coastal coho 

salmon expertise (technical recovery team).

The Oregon Coast Coho Conservation Plan is Oregon’s conservation plan for coastal coho 

salmon populations; it is not a federal ESA recovery plan. As the above chronology shows, the 

Oregon Coast coho salmon ESU was not listed as a threatened species under the ESA until 

several months after ODFW published the conservation plan. The plan was not intended to 

provide all the information needed to achieve ESA delisting. 

NMFS considers the state’s conservation plan a precursor to, and foundation for, this proposed 

recovery plan, recognizing that the ESA goals are different but compatible. While most of the 

elements of the state’s conservation plan are consistent with this recovery plan, the conservation 

plan’s goals are broader and go beyond the ESA requirements for delisting. This suggests that 

efforts to achieve the conservation plan’s broader goals will support ESA recovery.

Overall, the two plans have much in common, including the following goals: (1) long-term 

persistence of sustainable populations of naturally produced Oregon Coast coho salmon; (2) 

distribution of healthy coho salmon populations across their native range; (3) providing social 

and cultural benefits of meaningful harvest opportunities that are sustainable over the long term; 

and (4) pursuing salmon conservation and recovery using an open and cooperative process that 

respects local customs and benefits local communities and economies. Thus, we believe that 

achieving recovery under the ESA is an important milestone on the way to achieving the broader 

goals of the state conservation plan. Upon delisting, NMFS will work with co-managers and 

local stakeholders, using our non-ESA authorities, to pursue the conservation plan’s broader 

recovery goals while continuing to maintain robust natural populations. 

Relationship to Other Recovery Planning Efforts

For the purpose of recovery planning for the listed salmon and steelhead species, the NMFS

designated eleven geographically based ‘recovery domains’ (Figure 1-2). We delineated these 

domains by considering ESU or DPS boundaries, ecosystem boundaries, and local planning 

units. The Oregon Coast coho salmon ESU is one of 19 evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) 

and distinct population segments (DPSs) of salmon and steelhead in the Pacific Northwest that 

are listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA. One other listed ESU of salmon also 

spawns and rears on the Oregon Coast, the Southern Oregon/ Northern California coho salmon 

(SONCC) ESU. This Plan covers Oregon Coast coho salmon, while a separate plan covers the 

Southern Oregon/ Northern California coho salmon (NMFS 2014). 

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 1-7

Figure 1-2. NMFS West Coast Region Recovery Domains.

For each domain, NMFS appointed a team of scientists, called a technical recovery team, with

geographic and species expertise to provide a solid scientific foundation for recovery plans. The 

charge of each technical recovery team was to define the historical population structure of each 

ESU or DPS, to recommend biological viability criteria for each ESU or DPS and its component 

populations, to provide scientific support to local and regional recovery planning efforts, and to 

provide scientific evaluations of proposed recovery plans. NMFS formed the Oregon/ Northern 

California Coasts Technical Recovery Team (ONCC TRT) in the fall of 2001 and created two 

main workgroups, one for the Oregon Coast recovery domain and another for the Southern 

Oregon/ Northern California Coast domain. Team representatives included staff from the

Northwest Fisheries Science Center, ODFW, U.S. Forest Service (or USFS), Oregon Watershed 

Enhancement Board (OWEB), and a private consultant. 

Each technical recovery team used the same biological principles to develop its recommended 

ESU and population viability criteria; we will use these criteria in combination with criteria 

based on mitigation of the factors for decline to determine whether a species has recovered 

sufficiently to be downlisted or delisted. The biological principles that underlie the viability 

criteria are described in the NMFS technical memorandum “Viable Salmonid Populations (VSP)

and the Recovery of Evolutionarily Significant Units” (McElhany et al. 2000). A viable ESU or 

DPS is naturally self-sustaining over the long term (100 years). McElhany et al. describe VSP in 

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 1-8

terms of four parameters: abundance, population productivity or growth rate, population spatial 

structure, and life history and genetic diversity. 

Each technical recovery team based its recommendations on the VSP framework and 

considerations related to data availability, the unique biological characteristics of the ESU or 

DPS and the habitats in the domain, and the team members’ collective experience and expertise.

Although NMFS encouraged the technical recovery teams to develop regionally specific 

approaches for evaluating viability and identifying factors limiting recovery, each team was 

working from a common scientific foundation to ensure that the recovery plans are scientifically 

sound, and based on consistent biological principles.

We used technical recovery team recommendations in developing goals for the recovery plans. 

As the agency with ESA jurisdiction for salmon and steelhead, NMFS makes final 

determinations of ESA delisting criteria (see Chapter 4 for Oregon Coast coho salmon delisting 

criteria). 

1.4 How We Intend to Use the Plan

NMFS intends to use this Plan to support the Oregon Coast Coho Conservation Plan as well as to 

inform federal, state, and local agencies and interested stakeholders about what will be needed to 

recover Oregon Coast coho salmon to the point where they are self-sustaining in the wild and can 

be removed from the list of threatened and endangered species. Although recovery plans are 

advisory, not regulatory, they are important tools that help to do the following:

• Provide context for regulatory decisions;

• Guide decision making by federal, state, tribal, and local jurisdictions;

• Provide criteria for status reporting and delisting decisions;

• Organize, prioritize, and sequence recovery actions;

• Organize research, monitoring, and evaluation efforts; and

• Provide a framework for the use of adaptive management.

NMFS encourages federal agencies and non-federal jurisdictions to use recovery plans as they 

make decisions and allocate their resources including:

• Actions carried out to meet federal ESA section 7(a)(1) obligations;

• Actions that are subject to ESA sections 4d, 7(a)(2), or 10;

• Hatchery and Genetic Management Plans and permit requests;

• Harvest plans and permits;

• Selection and prioritization of subbasin planning actions;

• Development of research, monitoring, and evaluation programs;

• Revision of land use and resource management plans; and

• Other natural resource decisions at the federal, state, tribal, and local levels.

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 1-9

We will emphasize recovery plan information in ESA section 7(a) (2) consultations, section 10 

permit development, and application of the section 4(d) rule by considering:

• The importance of affected populations to listed species viability;

• The importance of the action area to affected populations and species viability;

• The relation of the action to recovery strategies and management actions; and

• The relation of the action to the research, monitoring, and evaluation plan for the affected 

species.

We expect that agencies and others will use this recovery plan as a reference and a source of 

context, expectations, and goals. We will encourage federal agencies to describe in their 

biological assessments how their proposed actions will affect specific populations and limiting 

factors identified in the recovery plans, and to describe any mitigating measures and voluntary 

recovery activities in the action area.

1.5 Tribal Trust Responsibilities

The coho salmon that were once abundant on the Oregon Coast were crucial to Native 

Americans throughout the region. Pacific Northwest Indian tribes today (in particular, the Coos, 

Coquille, Cow Creek, Grand Ronde, Lower Umpqua, Siletz, and Siuslaw) retain strong spiritual 

and cultural ties to salmon and steelhead, based on thousands of years of use for tribal 

religious/cultural ceremonies, subsistence, and commerce. 

While many Northwest Indian tribes have treaties reserving their right to fish in usual and 

accustomed fishing places, none of the tribes on the Oregon Coast have treaty reserved rights.

They do have, however, a trust relationship with the federal government and an interest in 

salmon and steelhead management, including harvest for subsistence and ceremonial purposes in 

areas covered by this Plan, in compliance with agreements with the state of Oregon. 

Restoring and sustaining a sufficient abundance of salmon and steelhead for harvest is an 

important requirement in fulfilling tribal fishing aspirations. NMFS is committed to meeting 

federal treaty and trust obligations to the tribes. These obligations are described in a July 21, 

1998, letter from Terry D. Garcia, Assistant Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, to Mr. Ted Strong, Executive Director of the Columbia River InterTribal Fish Commission. This letter states that recovery “must achieve two goals: (1) the 

recovery and delisting of salmonids listed under the provisions of the ESA, and (2) the 

restoration of salmonid populations over time, to a level to provide a sustainable harvest 

sufficient to allow for the meaningful exercise of tribal fishing rights.” 

Thus it is appropriate for recovery plans to take these conditions into account and plan for a 

recovery strategy that supports goals for Indian harvest during and after recovery in a manner 

that is consistent with recovery of naturally spawning populations. NMFS believes that our 

relationship with the Pacific Northwest tribes is critically important to the success of recovery 

efforts. The NMFS Regional Administrator, in testimony before the U.S. Senate Indian Affairs 

Committee (Lohn 2003), emphasized the importance of this co-manager relationship: “We have 

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 1-10

repeatedly stressed to the region’s leaders, tribal and non-tribal, the importance of our comanagement and trust relationship to the tribes. NMFS enjoys a positive working relationship 

with our Pacific Northwest tribal partners. We view the relationship as crucial to the region’s 

future success in recovery of listed salmon.” 

1.6 Other Species that Could Benefit from this Plan

A major component of this Plan is the protection and restoration of the ecosystem functions and 

local habitat that are critical for Oregon Coast coho salmon recovery. Other species are likely to 

benefit from improved natural ecosystem function as well, including eulachon, Pacific lamprey, 

green sturgeon, spring and summer Chinook salmon, chum salmon, winter and summer 

steelhead, cutthroat trout, and others. In this respect, we intend this Plan, while focused on a 

single-ESA-listed species, to be supportive of and consistent with the broader goals of ecosystem 

protection and restoration on the Oregon Coast. 

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 2-1

2. Description of Species and Habitat

This Chapter provides a brief summary of the geographic setting and the features that describe 

Oregon Coast coho salmon and the species’ freshwater, estuarine, and marine habitats. Chapter 5

includes a more detailed description of the current status of the species and its habitat.

2.1 Geographical Setting 

Coho salmon are a wide-ranging species of Pacific salmon, spawning in rivers and rearing in 

streams and estuaries around the Pacific Rim from Monterey Bay in California north to Point 

Hope, Alaska; through the Aleutian Islands; and from the Anadyr River in Russia south to Korea 

and northern Hokkaido, Japan.

The geographic setting for the Oregon Coast coho salmon ESU includes the Pacific Ocean and 

the freshwater habitat (rivers, streams, and lakes) along the Oregon Coast from the Necanicum 

River near Seaside on the north to the Sixes River near Port Orford on the south. This area is 

included in the Coast Range ecoregion designated by the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA). The EPA described the historical setting of the Coast Range ecoregion as displaying low 

mountains covered by highly productive, rain-drenched coniferous forests. Sitka spruce forests 

originally dominated the fog-shrouded coast, while a mosaic of western red cedar, western 

hemlock, and seral Douglas-fir blanketed inland areas. Today, Douglas-fir plantations are 

prevalent on the intensively logged and managed landscape. The Oregon Coast includes 

considerable physical diversity, ranging from extensive sand dunes to rocky outcrops. With the

exception of the Umpqua River, which extends through the Coast Range to drain the Cascade 

Mountains, rivers in this ESU have their headwaters in the mountains of the Coast Range.

Land uses vary from forestry and agriculture to urban and rural residential development. Much 

of the upper portions of the region’s watersheds are forested and managed for timber production.

The population of the coastal zone is about 225,000 Oregonians—about 6.5 percent of the state's 

total population—in about 7,800 square miles of land area. Due largely to topographical 

constraints and a very limited network of arterial roadways, a large majority of coastal residents 

live very near the coastline or along narrow coastal river valleys.4 F

5

2.2 Description of Oregon Coast Coho Salmon

All Pacific salmon belong to the family Salmonidae, the genus Oncorhynchus. Coho salmon,

Oncorhynchus kisutch, are also known as silver salmon. This section summarizes characteristics 

specific to Oregon Coast coho salmon. Numerous reports and other documents provide extensive 

general information on coho salmon, including the final Recovery Plan for Central California 

Coast Coho Salmon, which contains an excellent history of salmon (Section 2).5F

6 The Recovery 

5 http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/OCMP/pages/cstzone_intro.aspx#Population_and_Demographics

6 http://swr.nmfs.noaa.gov/recovery/ccc_coho/

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016

 
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 2-2

Plan for Lower Columbia River species 6F

7 provides information about salmon and steelhead 

populations just north of the Oregon Coast coho salmon ESU and the Recovery Plan for 

Southern Oregon/ Northern California Coast coho, completed in 2014, discusses coho salmon

populations to the south of this ESU.7F

8

2.2.1 Historical and Current Abundance

During pre-development times (circa 1850) coho salmon were far more abundant than Chinook 

salmon in the majority of Oregon coastal watersheds. Runs of coho salmon to these coastal rivers 

and streams were likely only approached, or exceeded, by runs of chum salmon in rivers along

the northern portion of the Oregon coast. The Oregon Coast Coho Conservation Plan estimated 

that pre-development coho salmon runs to the Oregon Coast coho salmon ESU (1800s and early 

1900s) may have been in the range of one to two million fish or more during periods of favorable 

ocean conditions. Runs of this size would create concentrations of several hundred spawners per 

mile across the ESU. Such densities of coho salmon spawners are within the range of spawner 

densities that have been observed for this species in many undisturbed watersheds throughout the 

Pacific Northwest (ODFW 2007).

Oregon Coast coho salmon were the most numerous species harvested in commercial and 

recreational fisheries off the Oregon coast during the 1950s and through the 1970s. Harvest rates 

of Oregon Coast coho salmon ranged from 60 percent to 90 percent from the 1960s into the 

1980s (Stout et al. 2012). Modest harvest reductions were achieved in the late 1980s, but rates 

remained high until the species’ dwindling return numbers led to further tightening of harvest 

regulations in the early 1990s (ODFW 2007).

NMFS’ 2012 biological review team (BRT) that evaluated the status of the ESU (Stout et al. 

2012) discussed historical abundance, stating in part:

In the 1994 status review, Weitkamp et al. (1995, p. 113) considered historical estimates 

of abundance for this ESU and concluded that “these numbers suggest current abundance

... may be less than 5 percent of that in the early part of the century.”

While these historical abundance estimates are very rough ...they suggest that there has 

been a substantial decrease in ESU-wide abundance during the twentieth century. In fact, 

the decline was a concern to state biologists as early as the late 1940s (Cleaver 1951).

Cleaver did not discuss causes of the decline other than to note that it was not caused by

changes in harvest rates. However, Lichatowich (1989) related the overall decline to 

habitat loss, reporting a decline in production potential from about 1.4 million recruits ca

1900 to only 770,000 in the 1980s, likely resulting from habitat alterations related to 

timber harvest and agriculture, which both expanded on the coast between 1910 and 1950

(See Figures 2-1 and 2-2).

NMFS presents these ‘very rough’ estimates as our approximation of the historical abundance of 

Oregon Coast coho salmon. We recognize that the accuracy of the available data, and the 

7 NMFS 2013

8 NMFS 2014

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016

 
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 2-3

methods used to interpret the data, have varied over time and that there is some dispute about the 

reliability of these estimates. It is important to understand that NMFS did not use these estimates 

in setting the recovery goals and delisting criteria described in Chapter 4. 

Figure 2-1.8F

9 Comparison of historical (1892–1956) and recent (1958–2015) estimates of spawner abundance and preharvest recruits. Horizontal dotted lines are the geometric mean recruits for 1892–1940 and 1960–2009. Analysis based 

on data from Cleaver 1951, Mullen 1981a, and Mullen 1981b; recent data from Wainwright et al. 2008 and ODFW

2016. Dark line is one interpretation of the long-term trend.

According to the 2012 BRT report,9F

10 all-time low returns in the 1970s and 1990s were around 

20,000 coho salmon spawners, which could be as low as one percent of some of the predevelopment run sizes. Since the mid-1990s, Oregon Coast coho spawner escapement levels 

have varied greatly but peak abundance in several years (2011 and 2014) has been higher than at 

any other period since the 1950s (ODFW 2016). 

9 Adapted from Figure 6 in the BRT Report (Stout et al. 2012). 10 Table 3 in Stout et al. 2012.

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016

 
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 2-4

Figure 2-2. Estimated number of naturally produced adult Oregon Coast coho salmon (1950 to 2015). Number of adult 

coho salmon that spawned and those that were caught in fisheries.

2.2.2 Life History

Freshwater Life History

The anadromous life cycle of coho salmon begins in their home stream where they emerge from 

eggs as ‘alevins’ (a larval life stage dependent on food stored in a yolk sac). These very small 

fish require cool, slow moving freshwater streams with quiet areas such as backwater pools, 

beaver ponds, and side channels (Reeves et al. 1989) to survive and grow through summer and 

winter seasons. In particular, low gradient stream reaches on lower elevation land are important 

for winter survival of juvenile coho salmon (Stout et al. 2012). Current production of coho 

salmon smolts in the Oregon Coast coho salmon ESU is particularly limited by the availability of 

complex stream habitat that provides the shelter for overwintering juveniles during periods when 

flows are high, water temperatures are low, and food availability is limited (ODFW 2007). Since 

coho salmon spend up to half of their lives in freshwater, the condition of the winter and summer 

juvenile rearing habitat is a key factor in their survival.

The ONCC TRT and BRT reports described Oregon Coast coho salmon as following a yearlingtype life history strategy, with most juvenile coho salmon migrating to the ocean as smolts in the 

spring, typically from as late as March into June (Table 2-1). Coho salmon smolts outmigrating 

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 2-5

from freshwater reaches may feed and grow in lower mainstem and estuarine habitats for a 

period of days or weeks before entering the nearshore ocean environment. The areas can serve as 

acclimation areas, allowing coho salmon juveniles to adapt to saltwater.

Research shows that substantial numbers of coho fry may also emigrate downstream from natal 

streams into tidally influenced lower river wetlands and estuarine habitat (Chapman 1962; Koski 

2009; Bass 2010). The BRT (Stout et al. 2012) reported at least three discrete life history 

strategies involving coho fry and presmolt migrations into lower river habitats: (1) late fall 

migration into side-channel or pond habitats connected to lower mainstem reaches from 

mainstem summer rearing habitats, (2) lower mainstem and estuarine summer rearing followed 

by upstream migration for overwintering, and (3) lower mainstem and estuarine rearing followed 

by subyearling outmigration to ocean. The relative contribution of these alternative life history 

pathways to either current or historical adult coastal coho salmon populations is not known 

(Stout et al. 2012).

The conventional view has been that adult coho salmon return to natal tributaries from 

September to November, and normally spawn in relatively small tributaries with low to moderate 

gradient stream reaches close to where they were hatched. This life history subjects the young 

fish to variability in climate patterns affecting rainfall and temperature, estuarine habitats, 

catastrophic events like floods and fire. It also exposes them to the effects of land modifications 

and uses adjacent to streams, including roads, culverts, rural residential, agricultural, and other

uses that may degrade habitat conditions or access. 

Table 2-1. Conventional Understanding of Life History of Coho Salmon by Month.

Time Period Coho Life History Stage

September – November Adults re-enter freshwater

November – January Coho spawn in ‘redds’ (gravel nests) then die

Winter Eggs incubate in redds for 1.5 to 4 months

First spring after spawning Eggs hatch as alevins then emerge from gravel as ‘fry’

Summer Summer rearing (cool temperatures, slow water, shelter required)

Winter Winter rearing (slow water, shelter required)

Second spring after spawning Juveniles ‘smolt’ and migrate to the estuary and ocean about 18 months after 

being deposited in gravel

About 18 months

Coho salmon typically spend two 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.

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 2-6

In recent years, there has been important research on the life history of Oregon Coast coho 

salmon. The following excerpts from Koski 2009 and Jones et al. 2014 provide an introduction 

to how this research is changing how scientists view the importance of life history diversity in 

the recovery of Oregon Coast coho and other salmon species.

Excerpt from Koski (2009) article, The fate of coho salmon nomads: the story of an estuarinerearing strategy promoting resilience, in Ecology and Society: 

“Adult coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) typically enter small coastal streams or 

tributaries of larger rivers in fall and usually ascend to the headwaters to spawn enabling 

their progeny to fill habitats throughout the system. Conventional understanding of coho 

salmon life history presumes that, following emergence from the redd in spring, coho fry 

take up residency in the stream for a year or more before migrating to sea in spring as 

smolts (Sandercock 1991). However, large numbers of fry (age 0, 1st year of life), 

typically move downstream following emergence. Chapman (1962) first coined the term 

‘nomads’ referring to those coho fry moving downstream between emergence and 

October (Koski 2009).”

Excerpts from Jones et al. (2014) article, The contribution of estuary-resident life histories to the 

return of adult Oncorhynchus kisutch, in the Journal of Fish Biology:

“Conventional understanding of the life history of juvenile coho salmon Oncorhynchus

kisutch (Walbaum 1792) in the U.S. Pacific Northwest has presumed a relatively fixed

pattern of rearing and migration. This model presupposes that successful O. kisutch rear

in natal streams and migrate to the ocean as age 1 year (i.e. yearling) smolts, returning as 

3 year-old adults (Gilbert 1913; Sandercock 1991). Recent studies have found much 

greater variation in juvenile life history and habitat-use patterns than previously expected, 

including evidence that estuaries may play a significant role in the life histories of some 

O. kisutch populations (McMahon & Holtby 1992; Miller & Sadro 2003; Koski 2009; 

Bennett et al. 2011).”

“Life-history diversity in Oncorhynchus spp. has been described as an example of

response diversity in which variations in phenotypic behavior confer resilience to

populations under changing environmental conditions (Elmqvist et al. 2003; Bottom et al.

2009; Moore et al. 2010)... The Salmon River results demonstrate that, even within a 

small watershed, O. kisutch can express considerable variation in their migratory 

pathways and rearing environments. Such variations constitute a high level of response 

diversity, spreading mortality risks in time and space. The results further suggest that the 

productive capacity of the basin for O. kisutch is also a function of phenotypic diversity. 

Estuary restoration has re-established a variety of habitats capable of rearing juveniles 

that were not supported by stream habitats in the upper basin. Under the environmental 

conditions experienced during this survey, estuarine wetlands accounted for as much as 

30 percent of the adult O. kisutch that now return to spawn in Salmon River. These 

results suggest that life-history diversity and the habitat opportunities that sustain it are 

fundamental to the productivity as well as the resilience of Salmon River O. kisutch

(Jones et al. 2014).”

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 2-7

Ocean Life History

After rearing in protective freshwater areas, juvenile coho salmon migrate downstream, into the 

estuary were they continue to grow and acclimate to salt water. In the ocean, salmon reach 

maturity before they return to their home streams. Ocean conditions, and marine survival, can 

vary considerably within and between years.

Oregon Coast coho salmon tend to make relatively short ocean migrations. Coho from this ESU 

are present in the ocean from northern California to southern British Columbia, and even fish 

from a given population can be widely dispersed in the coastal ocean,10 F

11 but the bulk of the ocean 

harvest of coho salmon from this ESU are found off the Oregon coast. This ESU is strongly 

influenced by ocean conditions off the Oregon Coast, especially by the timing and intensity of 

upwelling (a condition characterized by near- shore ocean currents providing cool, nutrient-rich 

water that stimulates production of food that supports coho salmon and other fish species).

From central British Columbia south, the majority of coho salmon adults return to spawn as 3–

year-old fish, having spent about 18 months in freshwater and 18 months in salt water (Gilbert 

1912; Pritchard 1940; Sandercock 1991). The primary exceptions to this pattern are ‘‘jacks,’’ 

sexually mature males that return to freshwater to spawn after only 5 to 7 months in the ocean.

West Coast coho salmon juveniles typically leave freshwater in the spring (April to June) and reenter freshwater as adults from September to November. They primarily spawn from November 

through January and into February (Sandercock 1991; Sounhein et al. 2015; Oregon 2015). 

The BRT report (Stout et al. 2012) and the OCCCP (ODFW 2007) provide more detailed 

descriptions of the important role that marine survival plays in the abundance and productivity of 

Oregon Coast coho salmon. The BRT report observed that given current habitat conditions, 

Oregon Coast coho salmon are thought to require an overall marine survival rate of 0.03 to 

achieve a spawner: recruit ratio of 1:1 in high quality habitat (Nickelson and Lawson 1998). The 

ocean survival rate necessary to achieve a 1:1 spawner to recruit ratio is also, in part, a function 

of freshwater conditions, since a comparatively higher ocean survival rate would be necessary to 

compensate for lower smolts/spawner when spawner abundance is high. 

2.2.3 Population Structure of Oregon Coast Coho Salmon

The Oregon/Northern California Coasts Technical Recovery Team identified 56 historical

populations that function collectively to form the Oregon Coast coho salmon ESU (Figure 1-1 

and Table 2-2). The team categorized these populations as independent and dependent. 

Independent populations were historically self-sustaining and likely had relatively little 

demographic influence from neighboring populations (Lawson et al. 2007). In comparison, 

dependent populations rely on immigration from surrounding populations to persist. The team 

classified 21 of the populations as independent because they occur in basins with sufficient 

historical habitat to have persisted through several hundred years of normal variations in marine 

and freshwater conditions (Table 2-2). Two reports describe these populations and the process 

used to identify them: Identification of Historical Populations of Coho Salmon in the Oregon

Coast Evolutionarily Significant Unit (Lawson et al. 2007) and Biological Recovery Criteria

for the Oregon Coast Coho Salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit (Wainwright et al. 2008).

11 Weitkamp and Neely 2002

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016

 
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 2-8

The ESU’s long-term sustainability relies on the larger independent and potentially independent 

populations (Lawson et al. 2007). Dependent populations occupy smaller watersheds and rely on 

straying from neighboring independent populations to remain sustainable. While dependent 

populations are important to the long-term health of the ESU, they are not the primary focus of 

the recovery effort (The Decision Support System described in Chapter 4 includes a criterion that 

dependent populations within the ESU are not permanently lost.)

The independent populations were grouped together to form five biogeographic strata: North 

Coast, Mid-Coast, Lakes, Umpqua, and Mid-South Coast (Table 2-2). Populations are the basic 

elements of the ESU, and population strata represent clusters of populations that share ecological 

or geographic and genetic similarities. Collectively, the five strata form the ESU (Figure 2-3). 

Table 2-2. Classification of Oregon Coast Coho Salmon ESU historical populations. Modified from Lawson et al. 

(2007) and listed north to south within biogeographic strata.1 1F

12 I = Independent Population, D = Dependent 

Population.

Stratum Population Type Stratum Population Type

North Coast

Necanicum I

Mid-Coast

Salmon I

Ecola D Devils Lake D

Arch Cape D Siletz I

Short Sands D Schoolhouse D

Nehalem I Fogarty D

Spring D Depoe Bay D

Watseco D Rocky D

Tillamook Bay* I Spencer D

Netarts D Wade D

Rover D Coal D

Sand D Moolack D

Nestucca I Big (near Yaquina) D

Neskowin D Yaquina I

Lakes

Sutton (Mercer Lake) D Theil D

Siltcoos I Beaver I

Tahkenitch I Alsea I

Tenmile I Big (near Alsea) D

Umpqua

Lower Umpqua I Vingie D

Middle Umpqua I Yachats D

North Umpqua I Cummins D

South Umpqua I Bob D

Mid-South

Coast

Threemile D Tenmile D

Coos I Rock D

Coquille I Big (near Siuslaw) D

Johnson D China D

Twomile D Cape D

Floras/New I Berry D

Sixes I Siuslaw I

*Includes coho salmon inhabiting all basins that drain directly into Tillamook Bay (Trask, Wilson, Tillamook, Miami, Kilchis, 

and other minor tributaries).

12 ONCC TRT Table 1

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016

 
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 2-9

Figure 2-3. Hierarchical population structure within ESA-listed ESUs, as identified by the ONCC TRT.

2.2.4 Hatchery Release of Coho Salmon in the ESU

In order to augment commercial and recreational harvest of Oregon Coast coho salmon, ODFW 

and private parties developed numerous hatchery programs, which reached a peak production of 

approximately 35 million fish in 1981 (Buhle 2009). In the early 1990s, ODFW released 

hatchery coho salmon in 17 independent Oregon Coast coho salmon populations, with 16 

different brood stocks throughout the ESU. 

Hatchery managers reduced or eliminated coho salmon hatchery programs on the Oregon coast 

starting in the mid1990s, generating a drop in production from a high of 35 million smolts in 

1981 to approximately 260,000 smolts in 2010 (ODFW 2005a, 2009a, 2009b). Since 2010, 

hatchery coho salmon have been released in only three of the ESU populations (Nehalem, Trask, 

and South Umpqua) with three brood stocks still in propagation (ODFW 2009b). In 2016, the 

release of hatchery coho salmon remained at 260,000 smolts annually.

Artificial Propagation ─ Membership in the ESU 

As part of its evaluation, the BRT considered membership of fish from hatchery programs within 

the ESU, applying NMFS’ Policy on the Consideration of Hatchery-Origin Fish in ESA Listing 

Determinations (70 FR 37204). The BRT determined that only the Cow Creek (South Umpqua)

Hatchery Program, one of three hatchery programs that produce coho salmon within the 

boundaries of this ESU, should be considered part of the ESU. The North Fork Nehalem and 

Trask (Tillamook) hatchery programs are not included in the ESU. This information was updated 

in the 2016 5-Year Review and Jones 2015.

Species

ESU/DPS

Stratum Stratum Stratum Stratum Stratum

ESU/DPS

Independent Populations

Species

ESU/DPS

Stratum Stratum Stratum Stratum Stratum

ESU/DPS

Independent Populations

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 2-10

• The Cow Creek hatchery stock (South Umpqua population) is managed as an integrated 

program and is included as part of the ESU because the original brood stock was founded 

from the local natural-origin population and natural-origin coho salmon have been 

incorporated into the brood stock on a regular basis. The Cow Creek stock is probably no 

more than moderately diverged from the local natural-origin coho salmon population in 

the South Umpqua River because of these brood stock practices and is therefore 

considered a part of this ESU.

• The North Fork Nehalem coho stocks are managed as an isolated harvest program. 

Natural-origin fish have not been intentionally incorporated into the brood stock since 

1986, and only adipose fin-clipped brood stock have been taken since the late 1990s.

Because of this, the stock is considered to have substantial divergence from the native 

natural population and is not included in the Oregon Coast coho salmon ESU.

• The Trask (Tillamook population) coho salmon stock is also managed as an isolated 

harvest program. Natural-origin fish have not been incorporated into the brood stock 

since 1996 when all returns were mass marked. Therefore, this stock is considered to 

have substantial divergence from the native natural population and is not included in the 

Oregon Coast coho salmon ESU.

2.2.5 Critical Habitat Designation

Section 4(a) (3) of the ESA requires the federal government to designate ‘critical habitat’ for any 

species it lists under the ESA. The Act defines critical habitat as areas that contain physical or 

biological features that are essential for the conservation of the species, and that may require 

special management or protection and requires that critical habitat designations be based on the 

best scientific information available, in an open public process, within specific time frames. On 

February 11, 2008, NMFS designated critical habitat for the Oregon Coast coho salmon ESU (73 

FR 7816), and this critical habitat designation remains in effect.

A critical habitat designation does not set up a preserve or refuge, and critical habitat 

requirements do not apply to citizens engaged in activities on private land that do not involve a 

federal agency. The designation applies only when federal funding, permits, or projects are 

involved. Under section 7 of the ESA, all federal agencies must ensure that any actions they 

authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed 

species, or destroy or adversely modify its designated critical habitat. Before we designate 

critical habitat, we consider its economic impacts, impacts on national security, and other 

relevant impacts. The Secretary of Commerce may exclude an area from critical habitat if the 

benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of designation, unless excluding the area will result 

in the extinction of the species concerned. 

The physical and biological features that support one or more life stages, and that NMFS

considers essential to the conservation of the species, are described in detail in the final rule

designating critical habitat for Oregon Coast coho salmon mentioned above (NMFS 2008). 

Habitat essential for the conservation of Oregon Coast coho salmon consists of four components: 

(1) spawning and juvenile rearing areas, (2) juvenile migration corridors, (3) areas for growth 

and development to adulthood, and (4) adult migration corridors. 

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 2-11

Essential features of spawning and rearing areas are described in Table 2-3 below. The adult 

migration corridors are the same areas, and the essential features are the same with the exception 

of adequate food (adults do not eat on their return migration to natal streams). 

Table 2-3 summarizes the physical and biological features that we consider essential for coho 

salmon.

Table 2-3. Types of sites and essential physical and biological features for anadromous salmonids, and the life

stage each supports (modified from Bambrick et al. 2004).

Site

Essential Physical and Biological

Features

ESU Life Stage

Freshwater spawning Water quality, water quantity, and

substrate Spawning, incubation, and larval development

Non-tidal freshwater rearing

Water quantity and floodplain

connectivity Juvenile growth and mobility

Water quality and forage Juvenile development

Natural covera Juvenile mobility and survival

Tidal freshwater migration Free of artificial obstructions, water

quality and quantity, and natural coverb Juvenile and adult mobility and survival

Estuarine areas

Free of obstruction, water quality and

quantity, and salinity

Juvenile and adult physiological transitions

between salt and freshwater

Natural cover,

a forage,b and water

quantity Growth and maturation

Nearshore marine areas

Free of obstruction, water quality and

quantity, natural cover,

a and forageb Growth and maturation, survival

Offshore marine areas Water quality and forageb Growth and maturation

a Natural cover includes shade, large wood, log jams, beaver ponds, aquatic vegetation, large

rocks and boulders, side channels, and undercut banks.

b Forage includes aquatic invertebrate and fish species that support growth and maturation.

NMFS recognizes that salmon habitat is dynamic and that the present understanding of areas 

important for conservation will likely change as recovery planning sheds light on areas that can 

and should be protected and restored, such as areas upstream of barriers where fish could be 

reestablished in historical habitat.

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 2-12

This page intentionally left blank.

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 3-1

3. Threats Assessment and Listing Factors

This chapter describes the fundamental causes of the decline in Oregon Coast coho salmon and 

what has changed since ESA listing. As discussed in Chapter 2, abundance of Oregon Coast 

coho salmon fell from between one and two million adult coho salmon historically, to as low as 

20,000 from the 1970s into the 1990s. The causes of decline are not unique to Oregon Coast

coho salmon, but are consistent with other species of salmon and steelhead as well as the 

findings described in section 2 of the ESA, where Congress declared that:

1. various species of fish, wildlife, and plants in the United States have been rendered 

extinct as a consequence of economic growth and development untempered by adequate 

concern and conservation; and

2. other species of fish, wildlife, and plants have been so depleted in numbers that they are 

in danger of or threatened with extinction.

3.1 Background: Threats and Limiting Factors

Designing effective recovery strategies and actions requires an understanding of limiting factors 

and threats that led to the species’ decline and continue to hinder viability. For the purposes of 

recovery planning, NMFS defines the terms threats and limiting factors as follows:

Threats

Threats are human activities or natural events, such as floodplain development or drought, that 

cause (direct threats) or contribute to (indirect threats) limiting factors. NMFS considers threats 

as those that exist in the present or are likely to occur in the near-term or medium-term future. 

While the term ‘threats’ carries a negative connotation, it does not mean that activities identified 

as threats are inherently undesirable. They are often legitimate human activities that may have 

unintended negative consequences on fish populations, and that can be managed in a manner 

that minimizes or eliminates the negative impacts. As discussed previously, many improvements 

have been made to reduce the threats to Oregon Coast coho salmon since they were listed.

The term ‘threats’ is often used as synonymous with the ESA listing factors detailed in the ESA 

section 4(a)(1). Consequently, we have categorized the threats to Oregon Coast coho salmon 

based on section 4(a)(1) of the ESA: 

A. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the

species’ habitat or range;

B. Over-utilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational

purposes;

C. Disease or predation;

D. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and

E. Other natural or human-made factors affecting the species’ continued

existence.

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 3-2

Limiting Factors

Limiting factors—or stresses—are biological, physical, or chemical conditions and associated 

ecological processes and interactions that limit a species’ viability. Primary limiting factors are

those with the greatest impacts on a population’s ability to reach the desired status.

A single limiting factor may be caused by one or more 

threats. Likewise, a single threat may cause or 

contribute to more than one limiting factor and may 

affect more than one life stage. In addition, the impact 

of past threats may continue to contribute to current 

limiting factors through legacy effects. For example, 

current high water temperature could be the result of 

earlier practices that reduced stream complexity and 

shade by removing trees and other vegetation from the 

streambank. Designing effective recovery strategies 

and actions requires an understanding of the range and impact of limiting factors and threats 

affecting the species, across its entire life cycle.

3.2 Factors that Led to Listing of Oregon Coast Coho Salmon

Many human activities contributed to the original ESA listing of Oregon Coast coho salmon as a

threatened species. In 1998, NMFS determined: “For coho salmon populations in Oregon, the 

present depressed condition is the result of several longstanding, human-induced factors (e.g., 

habitat degradation, water diversions, harvest, and artificial propagation) that serve to exacerbate 

the adverse effects of natural environmental variability from such factors as drought, floods, and 

poor ocean conditions (NMFS 1998).”12 F

13 A subsequent status review in 2005 by NMFS’ BRT 

found that risks posed by hatchery fish and fisheries had been greatly remedied, but questioned 

whether the ESU’s deteriorated freshwater habitat was capable of supporting levels of coho 

productivity needed to sustain the species during periods of poor ocean conditions (Good et al. 

2005). Subsequent status reviews conducted in 2011 and 2015 found continued uncertainty about 

ESU status because of persisting threats potentially driving its long-term status (habitat 

degradation and climate change) that were predicted to degrade in the future (Stout et al. 2012; 

NWFSC 2015). 

Table 3-1 lists the human-made and natural factors that contributed to ESA listing, and to the 

reaffirmation of the listing. The table is organized by the Listing Factors in the ESA section 4(a). 

13 (63 FR 42587).

Text Box 3-1. Primary Limiting Factors

For recovery of Oregon Coast coho 

salmon, our primary focus is on degraded 

habitat, particularly rearing habitat. State 

and federal scientific reports and findings 

identify reduced stream complexity and 

degraded water quality (especially 

increased water temperature) as the 

primary limiting factors for this species.

Text Box 3-2. Relationship to Key Ecological Attributes and Stresses

In a common framework, an approach used to link actions at the population and watershed levels to those at the 

ESU level, the characteristics of an ecosystem that define habitats capable of supporting a viable salmonid 

population are typically called Key Ecological Attributes (KEAs). Stresses, similar to the term limiting factors used 

in this recovery plan, are KEAs that have been altered and now limit a species’ viability. 

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016

 
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 3-3

Table 3-1. Summary of how human-made and natural factors (underlying causes) contributed to listing of Oregon 

coast coho salmon.

Human Activities and Natural 

Factors 

Summary of how activities and factors contributed to listing Oregon Coast

coho salmon (limiting factors)

Listing Factor A. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the species' habitat or

range (Section 3.2.1)

Cumulative effects of all human 

activities that threaten coastal 

coho salmon viability

There is little evidence of an overall improving trend in freshwater habitat 

conditions since mid-1990s, and evidence of negative trends in some strata.

Ongoing uncertainty about the future management of habitat, particularly

forested and floodplain habitat. Persistence of numerous primary threats to OC

coho salmon, including legacy effects from past forest management, and rural 

activities and urban development in high intrinsic potential habitat, global climate

change, etc. (76 FR 35755).

Protecting property and 

infrastructure by confining rivers 

and streams with levees, 

bulkheads, rip-rap and other 

armaments, dams, tidegates, 

culverts, etc.

Reduced quantity and quality of rearing habitat is the key limiting factor for OC 

coho salmon (floodplain area, number of pools, connected off-channel habitat,

amount of wood etc.). Complexity contributes to slow moving water and 

sheltered conditions necessary for juvenile rearing. Construction, including 

roads, dams, tidegates etc. can block OC coho salmon access to habitat. Coho 

suffer reduced life history diversity due to altered ecosystem.

Estuary and wetland development 

and floodplain development that 

impairs stream habitat

Altered ecosystem function resulted in reduced rearing habitat. 

Withdrawing water Reduced water availability (esp. Mid-South Coast Stratum); reduced connectivity 

of streams; increased temperature, reduced growth and survival.

Building and maintaining roads 

that impair stream habitat

Negative correlation between road density and coho habitat conditions. Roads 

increase the amount of sediment and alter hydrology (increase peak flows), 

particularly when hydrologic connected to streams (Stout et al. 2012).

Forest management activities that 

impair stream habitat

Historical and ongoing timber harvest and road building have reduced stream shade, 

increased fine sediment levels, reduced levels of instream large wood, and altered 

watershed hydrology (and natural sediment production, storage, and transportation 

regimes). Fish passage blocked in many streams by improperly designed culverts 

(Stout et al. 2012).

Rural activities including 

residential development and 

agricultural activities that impair 

stream habitat

Significant amounts of ‘high intrinsic potential’ rearing habitat are found on private 

lands and have been destroyed or degraded by land management including 

reduced or eliminated riparian buffers and reduced flood plain and stream 

complexity and rearing habitat.

Mining (gravel etc.) activities that 

impair stream habitat

Altered in-stream habitat and geomorphic function due to removal of gravel has 

reduced rearing habitat, significantly in some areas.

Converting land to urban and 

residential uses and maintaining 

urban and residential properties 

that impair stream habitat

Urban and rural-residential development has caused profound changes in storm 

water runoff and other changes which have decreased coho salmon habitat quality 

and availability.

Removing beaver and beaver 

habitat

Removing beaver and beaver habitat has caused loss of beaver pond habitat 

which is high value for rearing juvenile coho salmon (ODFW 2005c; Stout et al.

2012).

All activities that affect water 

quality

Water quality has long been identified as a factor for decline (NMFS 1997) and a 

limiting factor for recovery (ODFW 2005a) for OCCS. Water quality problems 

largely relate to nonpoint source pollution and flow and channel modification and 

increased temperature has been identified as a concern, with near lethal 

temperatures in some streams in the summer.

Introduction of invasive species Invasive species have disrupted native plant and animal communities.

Listing Factor B. Over-utilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes (Section 3.2.2)

Reducing the number of spawners 

by catching OC coho in directed 

Very high harvest levels (as high as approximately 90%) greatly reduced the 

abundance of Oregon Coast coho salmon prior to the late 1990s.

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 3-4

Human Activities and Natural 

Factors 

Summary of how activities and factors contributed to listing Oregon Coast

coho salmon (limiting factors)

commercial and recreational 

fisheries, and as incidental catch 

in other fisheries.

Listing Factor C. Disease and predation (Section 3.2.3)

Introducing and protecting 

predators

Predation on coho salmon by non-native predators (bass and other non-native 

fish) is considered a primary threat to the lake populations.

Listing Factor D. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (Section 3.2.4)

Multiple human activities that 

result in loss of habitat or direct 

mortality of OC coho salmon,

Previous reports concluded “Current protective efforts are insufficient to provide

for freshwater habitat conditions capable of producing a viable ESU” (76 FR 

35755).” ... a long and growing list of secondary threats including invasions of

exotic organisms, poor water quality, and land-use conversion (76 FR 35755).

Listing Factor E. Other natural or human-made factors affecting the species’ continued existence (Section 3.2.5)

Changes in ocean conditions 

affecting survival

A twenty year-long period ‘warm regime’ resulted in repeated years of poor 

ocean survival (1977-97).

Operating coho salmon hatcheries Hatchery production contributed to increased risk to the naturally produced coho 

salmon.

Effects of Climate Change 

“Global climate change is likely to result in further degradation of freshwater habitat 

conditions and poor marine survival” (76 FR 35755). Sea level rise is very likely to 

lead to loss of estuarine wetland habitats crucial to successful rearing and ocean 

transition.

The factors that have affected Oregon Coast coho salmon are consistent with what was 

happening to salmon habitat elsewhere, as the following excerpt (Roni and Beechie 2012) and 

Figure 3-1 explain:

“The most severe impacts to aquatic systems in North America, Europe, and elsewhere 

arguably occurred in the late 19th and during the 20th century. Increasingly mechanized 

societies channelized and degraded rivers, drained wetlands, cut down entire forests, 

intensified agriculture, and built dams for power, irrigation, and flood control. This 

history of land and water uses along with other human activities produced the degraded 

conditions we see on the landscape today.... The above factors, coupled with an 

increasing human population, have led to increased air pollution, highly modified and 

polluted rivers, and a rapid increase in number of threatened and endangered, or extinct 

species.”1 3F

14

14 Roni and Beechie 2012 p 4

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016

 
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 3-5

Figure 3-1. Increase in selected human impacts during the last 300 years (percent increase compared to 10,000 BP). From 

Roni and Beechie 2012. Reproduced by permission of John Wiley & Sons. (BP: before present day.)

3.3 How the ESA Listing Factors Currently Affect ESU Status

Since the original listing of the ESU, significant threats that contributed to the species’ listed 

status have been addressed and now present little harm to the ESU while others continue to 

threaten viability. Impacts from ocean and inriver fisheries are now better regulated through 

ESA-listing constraints and management agreements, significantly reducing harvest-related 

mortality. Hatchery-related concerns have also declined due to reduced hatchery production. 

There have also been improvements in habitat conditions; however, the BRT reported that 

ongoing and past forest management practices, combined with lowland agricultural and urban 

development, have resulted in a situation where the areas of highest potential habitat capacity for 

coastal coho salmon are now severely degraded. The BRT determined that this long-term loss of 

high-value rearing habitat had increased the vulnerability of the ESU to near-term and long-term 

climate effects (Stout et al. 2012). 

Section 3.3 discusses the remaining threats for Oregon Coast coho salmon that continue to affect 

ESU viability today. The section is organized according to the five listing factors in ESA section 

4(a)(1). Section 3.3.1 discusses factors that present or threaten destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of the species’ habitat or range. Section 3.3.2 describes factors related to overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes. Section 3.3.3 

identifies factors related to disease and predation. Section 3.3.4 discusses concerns related to the 

inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. Section 3.3.5 describes other natural or humanmade factors affecting the species’ continued existence. 

Identification of limiting factors for Oregon Coast coho salmon is based on a substantial body of 

research on salmonids, local field data and field observations, and the considered opinions of 

regional experts. We identified these factors based on previous Federal Register Notices, 

proposed rules, and previous BRT reports (Weitkamp et al. 1995; Good et al. 2005), as well as 

numerous other reports and assessments (ODFW 1995, 2005a, 2007; NWFSC 2015) that have 

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 3-6

reviewed in detail the effects of historical and ongoing land management practices that have 

altered Oregon coast coho salmon habitat. We draw on the BRT status review (Stout et al. 2012),

the NWFSC Status Update (NWFSC 2015), and NMFS 5-Year Review (NMFS 2016c) that 

describe the factors that have led to the current degraded condition of Oregon Coast coho salmon 

habitat. We refer readers to these reports for a more detailed discussion on the comprehensive 

analysis of factors affecting habitat conditions. 

3.3.1 Factor A. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or

curtailment of the species’ habitat or range

Threat: Historical, current, and future land use activities that affect watershed and estuarine 

functions that support habitat for Oregon Coast coho salmon.

Primary related limiting factors: Reduced quantity of coho salmon habitat (e.g., area of 

connected floodplain); within the remaining habitat, reduced quality (e.g., complexity and water 

quality). 

Discussion of Current Concerns for Factor A

A recent review of the status of Oregon Coast coho salmon conducted by the Northwest 

Fisheries Science Center (2015) expressed concerns similar to those from the 2011 review by 

NMFS’ biological review team. Both scientific reviews found that the long-term decline in 

Oregon Coast coho salmon productivity reflected deteriorating conditions in freshwater habitat, 

and that the remaining quality of the habitat may not be high enough to sustain species 

productivity during cycles of poor ocean conditions (NWFSC 2015; Stout et al. 2012). The 2011 

BRT review identified several factors that have led to the current degraded condition of Oregon 

Coast coho salmon habitat. We briefly summarize this information here, along with updated 

information from the 2015 NWFSC review, and direct readers to the comprehensive analyses of 

factors affecting Oregon Coast coho salmon habitat in the BRT reports (Stout et al. 2012; 

NWFSC 2015) for more detail. Several other documents also discuss the effects of historical and 

ongoing land management practices that have altered Oregon Coast coho salmon habitat, 

including NMFS’ previous Federal Register Notices, proposed rule and previous BRT reports 

(Weitkamp et al. 1995; Good et al. 2005), as well as numerous other reports and assessments 

(ODFW 1995; Christy 2004; Adamus et al. 2005; ODFW 2005b; ODFW 2007).

Many of the habitat changes resulting from land use practices over the last 150 years that 

contributed to the ESA-listing of Oregon Coast coho salmon continue to hinder recovery of the 

populations. Historically, habitat conditions in the coastal watersheds supported productive and 

sustainable coho salmon populations. Natural processes created seasonally inundated floodplains 

comprising complex feeding and refuge habitat that provided rich feeding and reliable refuge. 

Water stored on floodplains provided flood and drought resilience to the ecosystem. Channels 

across floodplains contained deep pools and strong connections to floodplains. Many stream 

channels contained abundant large wood from surrounding riparian hardwood galleries and 

upstream conifer forests. Stream temperatures were generally sufficient to support all coho 

salmon life stages throughout the year, as upland and riparian conditions allowed for the storage 

and release of cool water during summer months and provided shade sufficient to keep water 

temperatures cool. Extensive and abundant riparian vegetation stabilized streambanks, providing 

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 3-7

protection against erosion, while extensive floodplains provided sediment deposition zones, 

where ecosystem productivity peaks (Cluer and Thorne 2013; Cluer 2016).

Today, available habitat has been reduced and existing conditions are degraded in many of these 

once healthy watersheds. While restoration efforts continue, the scars of habitat degradation 

across the landscape continue to limit abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity of 

Oregon Coast coho salmon. 

This section describes the primary habitat-related limiting factors for Oregon Coast coho salmon: 

lost habitat (especially floodplain habitat and including blocked passage), reduced complexity, 

and degraded water quality. These degraded conditions reflect changes in the watersheds due to 

land use practices that together have weakened natural watershed processes and functions, 

including loss of connectivity to historical floodplains, wetlands and side channels; reduced 

riparian area functions (stream temperature regulation, wood recruitment, sediment and nutrient 

retention); and altered flow and sediment regimes.

Two of these concerns, stream complexity and water quality, were identified as primary and 

secondary limiting factors for the Oregon Coast coho salmon populations in a 2005 Oregon 

Coastal Coho Assessment (ODFW 2005b) (Table 3-2) and they continue to hinder recovery. 

Loss of floodplain habitat has emerged as a specific limiting factor and climate change has also 

emerged as an important potential limiting factor. This increases the importance of improving 

stream complexity, water quantity, and water quality as ways to safeguard against negative 

impacts on the coho populations from a changing climate (Oregon 2015).

Table 3-2. Primary and secondary limiting factors within remaining habitat for independent populations (BRT Table 

2, ODFW 2005b).

Population Primary limiting factor Secondary limiting factor

North Coast Stratum

Necanicum Stream complexity None identified

Nehalem Stream complexity Water quality

Tillamook Stream complexity Water quality

Nestucca Stream complexity None identified

Mid-Coast Stratum

Salmon Hatchery impacts14 F

15 Stream complexity

Siletz Stream complexity None identified

Yaquina Stream complexity Water quality

Beaver Spawning gravel Stream complexity

Alsea Stream complexity Water quality

Siuslaw Stream complexity Water quality

Umpqua Stratum

Lower Umpqua Stream complexity Water quality

Middle Umpqua Water quantity Stream complexity, water quality

North Umpqua Hatchery impacts15 F

16 Stream complexity

South Umpqua Water quantity Stream complexity, water quality

Lakes Stratum

Siltcoos Non-native fish species

Non-native fish species

Non-native species

Stream complexity, water quality

Tahkenitch Stream complexity, water quality

Tenmile Stream complexity, water quality

15 Hatchery Releases of coho were terminated by ODFW in these populations in the 1990s. 16 Hatchery Releases of coho were terminated by ODFW in these populations in the 1990s.

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016

 
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 3-8

Population Primary limiting factor Secondary limiting factor

Mid-South Coast Stratum

Coos Stream complexity Water quality

Coquille Stream complexity Water quality

Floras Stream complexity Water quality

Sixes Stream complexity Water quality

Reduced amount and complexity of habitat

Loss of stream complexity, including connected floodplain habitat, within the remaining habitat 

was identified as a primary limiting factors for many Oregon Coast coho salmon populations by 

ODFW (ODFW 2005b). Oregon’s assessment identified stream complexity as the primary or 

secondary limiting factor for all 21 independent coho salmon populations (Table 3-2). The state 

of Oregon also identified stream complexity as a primary limiting factor in the Oregon Coast 

Coho Conservation Plan (ODFW 2007).

Stream complexity refers to the ability of a stream to provide a variety of habitat conditions that 

support adult coho salmon spawning, egg incubation and juvenile rearing. The loss of habitat 

capacity and degraded conditions to support overwinter rearing of juvenile coho salmon is 

especially a concern. Sufficient habitat capacity and complexity is critical to produce enough 

recruits-per-spawner to sustain productivity, particularly during periods of poor ocean 

conditions. Habitat conditions that create sufficient complexity for juvenile rearing and 

overwintering include complex large wood debris structures, pools, connections to side channels 

and off-channel alcoves, beaver ponds, lakes, and connections to wetlands, backwater areas and 

complex floodplains. Many of these habitat conditions are maintained through connection to the 

surrounding landscape.

Several historical and ongoing land uses have reduced stream capacity and complexity in Oregon 

coastal streams and lakes through disturbance, road building, splash damming, stream cleaning,

and other activities. Timber activities have reduced levels of instream large wood, increased fine 

sediment levels, and altered watershed hydrology. Historical splash damming removed stream 

roughness elements, such as boulders and large wood, and in some cases scoured streams to 

bedrock. Agricultural activities reduced instream flows through water diversions, and altered 

stream stability by removing stream-side vegetation and through the building of dikes and levees 

that disconnected streams from their floodplains and resulted in loss of natural stream sinuosity. 

Instream and off-channel gravel mining removed natural stream substrates and altered floodplain 

function. Urban development has also led to building of roads by streams, stream channelization,

and loss of instream wood in some areas. Future conversion of forest and agricultural land to

urban and suburban development is likely to result in an increase in these effects (Burnett et al.

2007). ODFW and other natural resource agencies also added to the loss of stream complexity 

through past stream cleaning activities. While ODFW ended this practice, the legacy effects from 

the loss of large amounts of wood in coastal stream systems continues to affect habitat conditions 

for coho salmon.

Beaver removal, combined with loss of large wood in streams, has also led to degraded stream 

habitat conditions for coho salmon (Stout et al. 2012). Beaver exploitation for the fur trade left 

them nearly extinct by 1900 (Naiman et al. 1988; Bouwes et al. 2016), though some researchers 

believe beaver populations in Oregon Coast streams were impacted more by early 1900s forestry 

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 3-9

and agricultural practices (ODFW 2005c). Their numbers have increased since the early 1900s, 

but remain at approximately 3-10 percent of historical levels (Pollock et al. 2003). While not all 

beaver on the Oregon Coast build dams (Maenhout 2013; Petro 2013), dam-building beaver 

occur within every stratum of the Oregon Coast coho salmon ESU (data from Anlauf et al. 2011,

as cited in Stout et al. 2012). Removing dam-building beaver results in the eventual loss of their 

ponds as the dams fail without maintenance. Because beaver ponds provide high-value coho 

salmon habitat on the Oregon Coast (Leidholt-Bruner et al. 1992; Nickelson et al. 1992), their 

reduction constitutes degraded conditions for coho salmon.

Overall, the BRT found that stream habitat complexity and summer parr capacity are decreasing 

in the Umpqua Stratum but increasing in the other strata (Stout et al. 2012). Winter parr capacity 

is trending flat in the North Coast and Mid-Coast strata, but declining in the Mid-South Coast 

and Umpqua strata. Large wood volume appears to be declining in the North Coast and Umpqua

strata, while increasing in the Mid-Coast and Mid-South Coast strata. Table 3- 4 shows an 

updated analysis of stream habitat conditions and trends at the stratum level.

In addition to describing the loss of floodplain and other habitats and reduced stream complexity

in the remaining habitat, the BRT noted that “...extensive loss of access to habitats in estuaries 

and tidal freshwater may have been an important factor in reducing population diversity in 

(Oregon Coast coho salmon).” The 2012 BRT report added loss of estuarine habitat as a threat to 

Oregon Coast coho salmon recovery (Stout et al. 2012). Trends in estuarine habitat are discussed 

in the section below on blocked/impaired fish passage. Most estuarine habitat loss occurred prior 

to 1970 (Good et al. 2005). However, many activities still occur (e.g., dredging and disposal, 

new and replacement overwater and in-water structures, shoreline hardening, gravel mining, 

outfalls, tidegates) that continue to impact and degrade sustainable and functional estuary coho 

salmon habitat.

Degraded estuarine conditions are considered an emerging issue of concern, prompted in large 

part by the extensive research into the role of the estuary in the Salmon River Basin.16F

17 Interest in 

the role of estuaries in the coastal ecosystem is growing along with efforts to better understand 

and protect the estuarine environments on the Oregon Coast. For instance, the Pacific Marine and 

Estuarine Fish Habitat Partnership, one of 19 nationally recognized partnerships, has been 

conducting a West Coast-wide assessment to protect, restore and enhance juvenile fish habitat, 

habitat connectivity, and water quality and quantity in estuaries and nearshore marine 

environments. A main project of this partnership is to conduct an assessment of the role estuaries 

play in the life of juvenile fish and to develop a prioritization scheme to guide conservation and 

restoration actions supporting fish habitat functions in West Coast estuaries. More recently, the 

Oregon Coastal Management Program produced an estuary and shorelands habitat map 

(http://coastalatlas.net/estuarymaps/) and GIS database using the Coastal and Marine Ecological 

Classification Standard (CMECS; v. 4.0) to modernize the informational foundation for 

Oregon’s estuary management program (OCMP 2014), which has an inventory of Oregon’s 

coastal and estuary habitats.

There has been considerable research on estuaries in recent years (Jones et al. 2014; Jones et al. 

2011; Craig et al. 2014; Bennett et al. 2015) as summarized in Section 2.2.2. The important 

17 See for instance Jones et al. 2014.

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016

 
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 3-10

addition to conventional thinking has been the evidence that large numbers of coho salmon in 

their first year of life exhibit considerable variation in their migratory movements and the 

habitats they use, including wetlands and estuaries. It will be important to continue to gain new 

information about the role of estuaries in Oregon Coast coho salmon recovery in the adaptive 

management of the ongoing efforts to sustain the coastal ecosystem. 

Figure 3-2 shows that the number of smolts has stayed relatively constant since 2000, despite 

large variations in the number of adults. This suggests that reduced rearing habitat is limiting the 

number of juveniles that survive to reach the ocean, underscoring the importance of protecting 

and restoring rearing habitat.

Figure 3-2. Comparison of the total spawner abundance for the mid-coast stratum to the number of smolts reported for 

the Mill Creek (Yaquina), Mill Creek (Siletz) and Cascade Creeks, 1995-2012 (Anthony 2016).

Degraded water quality

Water quality has been identified as a factor for decline (NMFS 1997) and as a limiting factor for 

recovery (ODFW 2005b) of Oregon Coast coho salmon. In its 2005 assessment, ODFW and the 

BRT both identified water quality as the primary or secondary limiting factor for 13 of the 21 

Oregon Coast coho salmon populations (Table 3-2). Primary water quality concerns include high 

water temperatures and increased fine sediment levels, and, potentially, pollutants including 

arsenic, pesticides, and flame retardants (ODEQ 2015).

The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) has routinely monitored water 

quality at a number of river sites across the state. The data from this monitoring has been used 

for developing the Oregon Integrated Report on the condition of Oregon’s waters (Clean Water 

Act Section 305(b)) and waters that do not meet water quality standards and a TMDL is needed 

(Clean Water Act Section 303(d)). There are many streams within the Oregon Coast coho 

salmon area that have limiting water quality conditions for aquatic life and are listed on Oregon’s 

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 3-11

303(d) list. Figures 3-3 and 3-4 show water quality limited waters for temperature, dissolved 

oxygen, and pH (DEQ 2012). 

Figure 3-3. Water quality limited waters and 303(d) listed waters in Northern Oregon Coastal Basin.

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 3-12

Figure 3-4. Water quality limited waters in Southern Oregon Coastal Basins.

The BRT (Stout et al. 2012) determined that water temperature is the primary source of water 

quality impairment in the Oregon Coast coho salmon critical habitat. It found that many of the 

streams coho salmon juveniles inhabit are already close to lethal temperatures during the summer 

months.

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 3-13

Water temperature has been negatively correlated with salmon survival and abundance in 

freshwater (Lawson et al. 2004; Crozier et al. 2008). High water temperatures can also disrupt 

life cycle timing, potentially leading to a mismatch between smolt outmigration timing and onset 

of upwelling in spring (Crozier et al. 2008). Parasites and disease can be virulent at higher 

temperatures (Lawson et al. 2004). High water temperatures are also conducive to the survival 

and reproduction of non-native fish species such as smallmouth and largemouth bass. 

Consequently the BRT reached the broad conclusion that the rising temperatures anticipated with 

global climate change will have an overall negative effect on the status of the Oregon Coast coho 

salmon ESU (Stout et al. 2012). Approximately 40 percent of the Oregon Coast coho salmon 

ESU is already considered temperature impaired (ODEQ 2007), and rising water temperatures 

due to climate change could cause further habitat degradation, even in the absence of threats 

from other human activities like forestry and agriculture. Thus, the effects of climate change

pose a significant risk to coho salmon populations in those systems that are already impaired, and 

increase the likelihood of temperature impairment in the rest of the aquatic systems in the 

Oregon Coast coho salmon ESU.

Several land use activities have contributed to increased water temperatures in coastal streams. 

Historical and ongoing timber harvest and road building have reduced the function of riparian

zones and shade on streams (Stout et al. 2012). Agricultural activities have also affected water 

temperatures by removing riparian vegetation, reducing streamflow through water diversion, 

filling of wetlands and oxbows, channelizing streams to reduce meandering, and by 

disconnecting streams from floodplains through diking. Urbanization along stream corridors has 

resulted in filling in wetlands and side channels, loss of streamside vegetation and added 

impervious surfaces, which alter normal hydraulic processes and can increase water temperature. 

In addition to current practices, there are legacy conditions that impact water quality such as 

invasive plant species in riparian areas (Oregon 2015).

Increased levels of fine sediments and pollution due to contaminants also affect coho salmon 

production. Increased sediment loads generally result from historical and current forest 

management and agricultural operations and road building that lead to erosion and allow 

sediments to enter streams. Further, streams can be contaminated by hydrocarbons, fertilizers,

pesticides, and other contaminants via stormwater and agricultural runoff and aerial spraying.

Waterbodies that are identified as impaired by ODEQ through its Integrated Report 303(d) 

process are addressed through the development and implementation of a Total Maximum Daily 

Load (TMDL). A TMDL is a determination of the total amount of a pollutant the waterbody can 

assimilate and still meet water quality standards. Water quality standards and TMDLs allocations 

are used to guide TMDL implementation efforts to restore water quality. Table 3-3 shows the 

TMDLs issued or being developed in the Oregon Coast coho salmon area. 

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 3-14

Table 3-3. TMDLs Issued or Being Developed in the Oregon Coast Coho Salmon Area (ODEQ 2016).

TMDLs Issued or Being Developed in the Oregon Coast Coho Salmon Area and Approval Dates

Waterbody and Approval Date Impairments Addressed Allocations

Clear Lake, Collard Lake TMDLs 

(1992)

- Clarity, Drinking water, protection of 

high quality water Phosphorus reduction

Coquille River TMDLs (1996) - Dissolved Oxygen

- Aquatic Weeds and Algae CBOD5 and TKN reduction

Garrison Lake TMDL (1992) - Aesthetics

- Algal Growth Phosphorus reduction

Little River Watershed TMDLs (2002)

- Temperature

- pH

- Sedimentation

- Heat load reduction

- Effective shade, increase in 

streamside vegetation

- Sediment load reduction

Nestucca Bay Watershed TMDLs (2002 

w/ 2006 Addendum)

- Temperature

- Bacteria(E Coli, Fecal Coliform)

- Sedimentation

- Heat load reduction

- Effective shade, increase in 

streamside vegetation

- Channel morphology improvements

- Pathogen reductions

- 20% stream bed areas fines in riffles

and glide reaches

North Coast Subbasins TMDLs

(2003 w/ 2006 Addendum)

- Temperature

- Bacteria (E Coli, Fecal Coliform)

- Biological Criteria (Temperature)

- Heat load reduction

- Effective shade, increase in 

streamside vegetation

- Pathogen reductions

Tenmile Lakes Watershed TMDLs

(2007)

- Aquatic Weeds and Algae (Sediment, 

Total Phosphorus)

- pH

- Chlorophyll a

- Sediment and TSS reductions

- Total Phosphorus reductions

- Weed management

Tillamook Bay Watershed TMDLs

(2001 w/ 2006 Addendum)

- Temperature

- Bacteria (E Coli, Fecal Coliform)

- Heat load reduction

- Effective shade, increase in 

streamside vegetation

- Pathogen reductions

Umpqua Basin TMDLs (2007)

- Temperature

- Bacteria (E Coli, Fecal Coliform)

- Aquatic Weeds and Algae

- pH

- Dissolved Oxygen

- Chlorophyll a

- Biological Criteria

- Heat load reduction

- Effective shade, increase in 

streamside vegetation

- Minimum Stream Flow

- Pathogen reductions

- Phosphorus and Nitrogen reductions

- Tui Chub management

- BOD and SOD reductions

Upper South Fork Coquille TMDLs

(2001)

- Temperature - Heat load reduction

- Effective shade, increase in 

streamside vegetation

Mid-Coast TMDLs

(under development)

- Temperature

- Bacteria (E Coli, Fecal Coliform, 

Enterococcus)

- Sedimentation

- Biological Criteria (Sediment)

- Dissolved Oxygen

- Not applicable at this time

Coquille Subbasin TMDLs (under

development)

- Temperature

- Bacteria (E Coli, Fecal Coliform)

- Dissolved Oxygen

- Chlorophyll a

- Not applicable at this time

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 3-15

Blocked/ impaired fish passage

There has been extensive reduction in connectivity and access to historical estuarine and 

freshwater coho salmon habitats, resulting from two primary sources: fish passage blocked or 

partially blocked by culverts, tidegates, bridges, dams, dikes, and levees and the loss of estuarine 

and tidal habitats. Although considerable work has been done to eliminate or improve barriers in 

the Oregon Coast recovery domain, approximately 30 percent of habitat had an unknown passage 

status in 2005 (Dent et al. 2005). Therefore, in 2005, the BRT concluded that passage could not 

be eliminated as a risk to coho salmon at that time. Since then, additional data sets have been 

published (e.g., ODFW 2015; Mattison 2011) and there are a considerable number of fish 

passage barriers in the Oregon Coast recovery domain, although key attributes for each are not 

always known (Figure 3-5). Many restoration opportunities remain especially in estuarine 

habitats where tidegates continue to be a fish passage barrier.

Figure 3-5. Oregon fish passage barriers for Oregon Coast coho salmon (ODFW 2015); does not include dikes, levees, or 

berms. (https://nrimp.dfw.state.or.us/DataClearinghouse/default.aspx?p=202&XMLname=44.xml)

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 3-16

Of particular importance is the restriction or prevention of fish passage in portions of most 

estuaries by tidegates, dikes, and levees. For example, Mattison et al. (2011) documented 

approximately 350 tidegates which were previously unaccounted for as restricting access, and 

even this is unlikely to be a non-comprehensive and incomplete database (Stout et al. 2012). 

Tidegates can also have direct effects on coho salmon movements through abrupt changes in 

salinity, elevated water velocities and turbulence, and degraded summer water quality, in 

addition to physically restricting fish passage (Giannico and Souder 2005; Bass 2010; Nordholm 

2014).

Fish passage also has been blocked in some streams by culverts and stream crossings that are not 

designed to allow fish passage. Many of these past barriers to coho salmon passage have been 

redesigned or removed to improve fish access, but coho salmon passage remains hindered in 

some streams by improperly designed culverts.

The historical ratio of estuarine and tidally influenced wetlands to total drainage area for the 

Coos, Coquille, Tillamook, and Umpqua Rivers were relatively high in comparison with other 

Oregon coastal drainages (Good 2000; Adamus et al. 2005). There are summaries of historical 

estuarine wetland losses along the Oregon Coast (Good 2000; Christy 2004; Adamus et al. 2005) 

and the amount of tidal wetland habitat available to support coho salmon migration, foraging, 

and rearing has declined substantially across all of the biogeographic strata (Figure 3-6) tidal 

habitat. In addition to the direct losses, restriction of access to sections of tidal habitat and 

stream/estuary ecotones through the installation of tidegates has severely changed habitats

available to rearing and outmigrating smolts relative to historical conditions. Beyond the 

potential effects on the smolt rearing capacity of coastal basins, widespread estuarine and tidal 

freshwater wetland losses may have also diminished the expression of sub-yearling migrant life 

histories within and among populations (Stout et al. 2012). Although there have been modest 

gains in estuary habitat through recent restoration efforts (Good 2000; Cogan Owens Cogan, 

LLC 2014), the current biological status of Oregon coastal coho populations reflects the effects 

of estuarine tidal habitat loss, including the potential impacts of the associated diminished life 

history diversities (Stout et al. 2012). This loss in access and connectivity reduces available 

habitat types and conditions that support species abundance, productivity, and spatial structure. It 

may also be an important factor in reducing population diversity.

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 3-17

Figure 3-6. Tidal habitat gains and losses in the Oregon Coast Recovery domain. The top plot reflects the Good (2000)

analysis and the bottom plot reflects the Adamus et al. (2005) analysis (Figure from Stout et al. 2012).

In Oregon, local governments regulate estuary and shoreland uses (Good et al. 2005). State law 

(Oregon Land Use Act ORS Chapter 197) requires each city and county to adopt a 

comprehensive land use plan that aligns with state planning goals, along with zoning and 

ordinances; each local plan is reviewed for approval by the Oregon Land Conservation and 

Development Commission. The local comprehensive plan guides a community’s land use, 

conservation of natural resources, economic development, and public facilities. However, due to 

insufficient resources, local governments are frequently challenged in their abilities to administer 

and maintain estuary plans and the integration of estuary management plans with state and 

federal regulatory processes has not been fully realized (OLDCD 2014). The Oregon Department 

of Land Conservation and Development is currently involved in updating the estuary portion of 

the statewide planning program.

Analysis of habitat trends

In addition to identifying primary and secondary limiting factors for Oregon Coast coho salmon 

(Good et al. 2005), the BRT described vegetation disturbance (Figures 20, 21, and 22 in Stout et 

al. 2012) and the five habitat trends used by a Habitat Technical Work Group17F

18 to measure 

changes in habitat status for Oregon Coast coho salmon. The results of their analysis of these 

trends are summarized in Table 3-4. In general, the analysis shows large wood levels and 

channel complexity declining in several strata while fine sediment levels are on the rise. Further 

details are available in the full BRT Report. In Section 4.3, we present an updated version of 

these trends as part of the delisting criteria. 

18 Stout et al. 2012, Appendix C.

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016

 
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 3-18

Habitat conditions in many stream reaches have improved due to restoration efforts. Restoration 

activities to improve coho salmon habitat have been ongoing since the 1990s, supported by 

NMFS, OWEB, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), U.S. Forest Service, other state and 

federal agencies, and many landowners and stakeholders. Together, these different projects are 

contributing to the restoration of habitat conditions in estuarine, tidal, and freshwater areas and 

are also adding wetland and other habitat available to juvenile coho salmon. The BRT 

determined that if aggregated across Oregon Coast coho salmon independent populations, recent 

restoration efforts have targeted a total area equivalent to 14−20 percent of current baseline of

tidal habitat (Stout et al. 2012). More recent work (Lanier et al. 2014) using updated estuary 

habitat mapping information suggests a smaller percentage of tidal habitat has been targeted and 

that restored marshes are often at a lower elevation than natural marshes and therefore more 

susceptible to sea-level rise.

However, while these habitat restoration projects remain a key element in the recovery process, it

remains to be seen if voluntary measures will have sufficient effects on ecosystem function and 

coho salmon productivity to provide a net improvement and overcome past and ongoing

degradation. Overall, the BRT’s analysis of freshwater habitat trends found (in spite of 

restoration efforts) little evidence for an overall improving trend in freshwater habitat conditions 

since the mid-1990s, and evidence of negative trends in some strata (Stout et al. 2012). 

Table 3-4. Stream habitat conditions in Oregon Coast Coho Salmon ESU over time (Anthony 2016).

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 3-19

3.3.2 Factor B: Over-utilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or

educational purposes

Threat: Overharvest of Oregon Coast coho salmon in ocean and freshwater fisheries. 

Primary related limiting factors: Reduced spawning escapement of Oregon Coast coho salmon 

from fishery harvest mortality.

Discussion of Current Concerns for Factor B

While fishery harvest in the past contributed to the decline of Oregon Coast coho salmon, several 

decades ago ODFW dramatically reduced the harvest of coho salmon. Consequently, the BRT 

(2012) and NWFSC (2015) concluded that reductions in harvest mortalities since 1993 have 

reduced the threat to the ESU and that further harvest restrictions will not reduce the risks to 

ESU persistence.

Today, all fisheries for Oregon Coast coho salmon continue to be managed according to the 

provisions set forth in Amendment 13 of the Pacific Fishery Management Council’s Pacific 

Coast Salmon Fishery Management Plan (NMFS and ODFW are key contributors). Amendment 

13 is intended to ensure that cumulative fishery mortality from all fisheries affecting Oregon 

Coast coho salmon will not impede the recovery potential for the ESU. Fishery impacts are 

capped at 35 percent, but typically range from 10-20 percent on an annual basis. Amendment 13 

sets harvest impact rates using a two dimensional matrix with parental status and a marine

survival index as axes. In Chapter 6, we acknowledge the need for continued adaptive 

management of the criteria for parental status (‘full seeding’) and the use of the marine survival 

index. This approach is intended to ensure that impacts will be minimized when populations are 

at low abundance or when ocean conditions are poor. Harvest impacts (up to 35%) at higher 

abundance slow progress toward recovery goals, but do not represent a threat to the viability of 

the ESU.

Amendment 13 is intended to ensure the Fishery Management Plan is consistent with NMFS 

advisory guidelines. The guidelines describe fishery management approaches to meet the 

objectives of National Standard 1 (NS1) of section 301 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act, which states “Conservation and management measures shall 

prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield (OY) from each 

fishery for the U.S. fishing industry.” Current harvest regulations can be found at the ODFW 

website: http://www.dfw.state.or.us/resources/fishing/docs/2016_Coastal_Coho_Seasons.pdf

Currently, Amendment 13 provides increased protections for Oregon Coast coho salmon from 

overutilization in commercial and recreational fisheries compared to previous management 

approaches. Consequently, NMFS does not consider harvest a current threat to recovery of the 

ESU. ODFW, NMFS and others continue to adaptively manage fisheries based on Amendment 

13, with annual fishery assessments based on new information and methodologies. 

NMFS recognizes the importance of nutrients contributed to ecosystems by salmon carcasses and 

Chapter 6 of this Plan provides a recovery strategy and recommends actions to continue to 

increase the protection of the species from overutilization.

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 3-20

3.3.3 Factor C: Disease or predation

Threats: Disease and increase in parasites. 

Primary related limiting factors: Reduced Oregon Coast coho productivity due to increases in 

infection of juvenile coho salmon by parasites and disease. 

Threats: Predation from birds, marine mammals and non-native fish.

Primary related limiting factors: Predation on Oregon Coast coho salmon by non-native fish in 

the Lakes stratum may reduce coho salmon abundance and productivity.

Discussion of Current Concerns for Factor C 

Disease

ODFW (2005b), in its assessment of Oregon Coast coho salmon, did not identify disease and 

parasitism as an important consideration in the recovery of this ESU. More recently, however, 

the BRT determined that many of the streams coho salmon juveniles inhabit are already close to 

lethal temperatures during the summer months, and with the expectation of rising stream 

temperatures due to global climate change, increases in infection rates of juvenile coho salmon 

by parasites may become an increasingly important stressor both for freshwater and marine 

survival (Stout et al. 2012). The level of impact that disease may be having on Oregon Coast 

coho salmon at the ESU, stratum, and/or population level is currently unknown. Disease 

infection and mortality rates for some diseases have been shown to increase with increases in 

water temperatures (Holt et al. 1975; Udey et al. 1975; Cairns et al. 2005). Cairns et al. (2005) 

have shown that “the direct effects of temperature associated with increased metabolic demand 

can be exacerbated by other factors, including decreased resistance to disease and increased 

susceptibility to parasites.” In addition, disease and infection of juvenile coho salmon in the first 

few months of ocean residence is also a key concern (Jacobson et al. 2003, 2008).

Predation by birds and marine mammals

The BRT identified several bird species and marine mammals that prey on Oregon Coast coho 

salmon, but concluded that avian and mammalian predation may not have been a significant

factor for decline when compared with other factors (Stout et al. 2012). Nonetheless, the 

abundance of birds and marine mammals that prey on Oregon Coast coho salmon along the 

Oregon Coast has increased in recent decades due to federal protections of those species. More 

recent work showing predation by birds and marine mammals has raised concerns for some coho 

salmon populations in the ESU, including the Nehalem, Tillamook, Nestucca, Alsea, and 

Coquille River populations (Wright et al. 2007; Adrean 2013). It is currently unknown what level 

of impact bird and marine mammal predation is having on the ESU, strata, or populations of 

Oregon Coast coho salmon.

Predation by non-native fish

The BRT voiced concern about predation on Oregon Coast coho salmon from introduced nonnative fish such as smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu) and largemouth bass (Micropterus 

salmoides). These predatory fish are more abundant in the lakes; the lower, middle, and south

Umpqua River populations; and the Coquille River population. The BRT concluded that 

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 3-21

predation and competition from non-native fishes, particularly in light of the warming water 

temperatures from global climate change, could seriously affect the lake and slow-water rearing 

life history of Oregon Coast coho salmon by increasing predation (Stout et al. 2012). Further, 

ODFW’s OCCCP recognizes that coho salmon populations in the Lakes basins ((Tahkenitch, 

Siltcoos, and Tenmile Lakes) are primarily limited by interactions (including predation) with 

non-native fish species. The OCCCP identifies predation as one of eight high priority topics for 

research and evaluation related to coastal coho salmon. Topics include “Evaluate cause and 

impact of marine mammal, avian and non-native fish predation on Coastal salmonids and coho in 

particular (ODFW 2007).” The rate at which non-native fish are preying on Oregon Coast coho 

salmon in the Lakes populations and the Umpqua and Coquille Rivers populations, and the level 

of impact non-native fish predation is having on these populations is unknown.

In the 2012 BRT review of the status of the Oregon Coast coho salmon ESU (Stout et al. 2012), 

the BRT noted:

“EPA (2009) commented that non-indigenous species (NIS) fish are capable of 

ecosystem changing effects as well of those of predation. NIS warm-water fishes pose a 

future threat to coho rearing due to ecosystem change as well as predation if anticipated 

temperature rise associated with global climate change occurs. [Another review]

(reference Appendix D in the BRT document) commented that predation and 

competition, particularly in light of the warming water temperatures from global climate 

change, could significantly affect the lakes and slow-water rearing life history of OCCS, 

not only by NIS fish but by native invasions as well (Reeves et al. 1998). As water 

temperatures increase, NIS warm-water and other native fish will be at an even greater 

advantage over OCCS in lake and slow water situations due to predation, competition, 

and ecosystem alterations. 

... in anticipating future conditions, as water temperatures increase there is greater risk to 

(Oregon Coast coho salmon) in lake and slow water situations due to predation, 

competition, and ecosystem alterations. This effect on the slow water and lake life 

histories of (Oregon Coast coho salmon) may present a significant threat to diversity of 

the species.”

Since ESA listing, ODFW has liberalized size and bag limits on smallmouth bass in the Umpqua 

River basin to reduce predation on Oregon Coast coho and other salmonids. In 2016 and beyond, 

there are no limits on the harvest of smallmouth bass throughout the basin. In addition, there are 

no limits on smallmouth bass that were illegally introduced in the Coquille Basin.

NMFS recognizes that the lake stratum has been the strongest in terms of sustainability and 

persistence in spite of the presence of non-indigenous species of fish.

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 3-22

3.3.4 Factor D: The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms

Threat: Ongoing activities that contribute to the loss and degradation of coho salmon habitat

Primary related limiting factors: Uncertainty that the combination of voluntary and regulatory 

mechanisms are in place and effective (including enforcement capabilities) in order to protect 

long-term viability of Oregon Coast coho salmon. 

Discussion of Current Concerns for Factor D

Several federal, state, and local regulatory mechanisms protect Oregon Coast coho salmon and 

their habitat. Any delisting decision will need to be supported by evidence that the threats facing 

the species have been ameliorated and that regulatory mechanisms are in place to continue 

conserving the species and habitat, and help prevent a recurring need to relist the species. 

NMFS’ final listing determination for Oregon Coast coho salmon in 2011 stated in part:

“Existing regulations governing coho salmon harvest have dramatically improved the

ESU’s likelihood of persistence. These regulations are unlikely to be weakened in the

future. Many hatchery practices that were detrimental to the long-term viability of this 

ESU have been discontinued. As the BRT notes in its report (Stout et al. 2012), some of

the benefits of these management changes are being realized as improvements in ESU

abundance. However, trendsin freshwater habitat complexity throughout many areas of

this ESU’s range remain discernibly unchanged. We remain concerned that regulation of

some habitat altering actions is insufficient to provide habitat conditions that support a

viable ESU.”

This section discusses the adequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms to protect habitats for 

Oregon Coast coho salmon. As noted by the BRT in the statement above, changes in regulation 

of fisheries and hatchery management since ESA listing have addressed concerns so that current 

harvest and hatchery practices do not pose a threat to ESU viability. 

Regulatory mechanisms for forestry activities

State Forest Practices Act

Management of riparian areas on private forest lands within the range of Oregon Coast coho 

salmon is regulated by the Oregon Forest Practices Act and Forest Practice Rules (ODF 2014). 

These rules require the establishment of riparian management areas (RMA) on certain streams 

that are within or adjacent to forestry operations. The RMA widths are 50 feet, 70 feet, and 100 

feet on small, medium, and large fish-bearing streams, respectively. The rules prohibit tree 

removal in the RMAs within 20 feet of fish-bearing streams, but harvest can occur within the 

outer reaches of the RMA as long as the minimum leave tree and basal area requirements are 

met. Typically, for operational ease, forest managers designate trees closest to the stream for the 

leave tree and basal area requirements. This effectively makes a no-cut buffer of 20 feet, with 

harvest occurring in the outer zone of the RMA width. There are no tree retention requirements 

for non-fish-bearing streams, although often foresters will retain their wildlife trees along 

intermittent streams.

Although the Oregon Forest Practices Act and the Forest Practice Rules generally have become 

more protective of riparian and aquatic habitats over time, significant concerns remain over their 

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 3-23

ability to adequately protect water quality and salmon habitat, (EPA and NOAA 2015; Everest 

and Reeves 2007; ODF 2005; IMST 1999). On July 28, 2015, EPA and NMFS found the State’s 

forestry management program was insufficient for approval under the coastal nonpoint program 

of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments (CZARA). In this letter, NOAA and EPA 

“found there were several gaps in Oregon’s program related to forestry... Closing the gaps in 

forestry is a critical step to achieve a fully approvable coastal nonpoint program under CZARA

(NOAA OCM 2015).”

NMFS continues to have several concerns, including: 

1. The applied widths of RMAs likely are not sufficient to fully protect riparian functions, 

water quality, and stream habitats from forestry operations. For example, a significant 

body of science, including (a) Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) Riparian and 

Stream Temperature Effectiveness Monitoring Project (Dent et al. 2008; Groom et al. 

2011a; Groom et al. 2011b); (b) A Statewide Evaluation of Forest Practices Act 

Effectiveness in Protecting Water Quality (ODF and ODEQ 2002); and (c) the 

Governor’s Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team (IMST) Report on the 

Adequacy of the Oregon Forest Practices in Recovering Salmon and Trout (IMST 1999), 

indicates that riparian protection around small and medium-sized fish-bearing streams 

and non-fish-bearing streams in Oregon is not sufficient to achieve Oregon Department of 

Environmental Quality’s protecting cold water standard. The RMA widths also do not 

ensure full recruitment of woody material to streams (McDade 1990; Meleason et al. 

2002), and in some cases likely are inadequate for sediment filtration (Rashin et al. 2006).

2. The 2014 Oregon Department Forestry rules lack requirements concerning road density 

and maintenance/ reconstruction of existing roads. Oregon’s IMST (1999, p. 47) found 

that “Old roads and railroad grades on forestlands, sometimes called legacy roads, are not 

covered by the Oregon Forest Practices Act rules unless they are reactivated for a current 

forestry operation or purposes. IMST believes the lack of a mechanism to address the 

risks presented by such roads is a serious impediment to achieving the goals of the 

Oregon Plan. A process that will result in the stabilization of such roads is needed, with 

highest priority attention to roads in core areas, but with attention to such roads and 

railroad grades at all locations on forestlands over time.” This concern about unstable old 

roads and railroad grades is still true under the current rules (ODF 2014). In some 

locations, that practice likely has resulted in significantly altered surface drainage, 

diversion of water from natural stream channels, and serious erosion or landslides, 

conditions that can degrade water quality and stream habitat. There are no limitations on 

cumulative watershed effects, therefore road density on private forest lands is unlikely to 

decrease.

3. The rules are not adequate to ensure water quality standards are met during forest 

management activities on high-risk landslide areas (EPA and NOAA 2015). Under the 

rules, shallow, rapidly moving landslide hazards directly related to forest practices are 

addressed only as they relate to risks for loss of human life and property (ODF 2014). 

Harvest is allowed on high-risk landslide hazard areas as long as the Oregon Department 

of Forestry does not believe it poses a risk to public safety or property.

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 3-24

In November 2015, the Oregon Board of Forestry voted to change the Forest Practices Rules to 

increase streamside protections for small and medium-sized streams where coho and other 

salmon and steelhead are present. The change counters the effect of increasing stream 

temperatures following certain types of forest harvest. It will also result in increased natural 

recruitment of large wood to streams. The change increases RMA width by 10 feet and increases 

basal area retention requirements on these stream types. The Oregon Department of Forestry is 

currently developing final rule language based on the Board’s decision. Since the rulemaking 

process has not be completed, NMFS cannot reasonably predict the outcome. If the proposal is 

not significantly strengthened, NMFS will still be concerned that it doesn’t provide adequate 

protections especially for shade and wood recruitment parameters. Oregon Department of 

Forestry’s RipStream data (see Groom et al. 2011a; Groom et al. 2011b) found that no-cut 

buffers of 90 feet meet ODEQ’s protecting cold-water standard approximately 50 percent of the 

time (Board of Forestry 2015). Because the November 2015 proposed buffers are less than 90 

feet and allow harvest within the RMA, the proposal is not likely to meet the water quality 

standard. 

State Forest Programs

Approximately 567,000 acres (2,295 square kilometers) of forest land within the range of Oregon 

Coast coho salmon are managed by the Oregon Board of Forestry. Approximately 100,000 acres

of these lands are ‘Common School Trust Lands’ with the goal to maximize revenue to the 

Common School Fund over the long term, consistent with sound techniques of land management.

The majority of these lands are managed under the Elliott Forest Management Plan (ODSL and 

ODF 2011) and the remaining state forests are managed under the Northwest Oregon State 

Forests Management Plan (ODF 2010). Both of these management plans provide higher levels of 

protection than on private forestlands. Furthermore, the state of Oregon has completed watershed 

assessments and physical habitat surveys and implemented significant stream and road 

restoration actions on the State forestlands. The management plans for state forests also require 

retention of riparian management areas. 

The state of Oregon is currently in the process of attempting to transfer ownership of the Elliott 

State Forest out of the Common School Fund. The final outcome of this process remains unclear, 

but the State Land Board is requiring that any proposal to buy the Elliott State Forest must 

include "conserving high quality watersheds by providing riparian management areas of 120 feet 

or more on both sides of all stream segments containing salmon or steelhead." It is also unclear

what actions could occur within the 120-foot RMAs or on non-fish-bearing streams, and whether

the Elliott State Forest Management Plan and the Northwest Oregon State Forests Management 

Plan will continue to provide Oregon Coast coho salmon habitat that is capable of supporting 

populations sustainable during both good and poor marine conditions.

Consequently, while the management plans for state forests are more restrictive than those for 

private forestlands, NMFS continues to be concerned over whether protective measures on state 

forestlands are, and will continue to be, sufficient to conserve Oregon Coast coho salmon and 

their habitat for the long term. We are particularly concerned about the strength of the streamside 

management measures to provide stream shade, woody debris recruitment (a key element in 

stream complexity), and other aspects of stream habitat complexity.

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 3-25

Northwest Forest Plan

Since 1994, land management on U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

lands in Western Oregon has been guided by the Federal Northwest Forest Plan (USDA and 

USDI 1994). The aquatic conservation strategy contained in this plan includes elements such as 

designation of riparian management zones, activity-specific management standards, watershed 

assessment, watershed restoration, and identification of key watersheds (USDA and USDI 1994).

Although much of the habitat with high intrinsic potential to support the recovery of Oregon 

Coast coho salmon is on lower- elevation private lands, federal forestlands contain much of the 

current high quality habitat for this species (Burnett et al. 2007). Relative to forest practice rules 

and practices on many non-federal lands, the Northwest Forest Plan has large riparian 

management zones (1 to 2 site-potential tree heights) and the BLM’s Resource Management Plan 

for Western Oregon provides relatively protective, activity- specific management standards 

(USDA and USDI 1994; NMFS 2016a). We consider the Northwest Forest Plan and BLM’s 

RMP, when fully implemented, to be sufficient to provide for the habitat needs of Oregon Coast 

coho salmon habitat on federal lands. Although maintaining this high quality habitat on federal 

lands is necessary for the recovery of Oregon Coast coho salmon, the recovery of the species is 

unlikely unless habitat can be improved in streams with high intrinsic potential on non-federal 

lands (Burnett et al. 2007, quoted in Stout et al. 2012).

The BLM completed a revision to their resource management plans for BLM districts within 

western Oregon by signing their Records of Decision on August 5, 2016. These new resource 

management plans replace the Northwest Forest Plan. BLM consulted with NMFS for this 

revised Resource Management Plan for Western Oregon with a biological opinion dated July 

15, 2016 (NMFS 2016a). The revised resource management plans have sub-watershed 

classification protections for riparian zones. The U.S. Forest Service continues to manage 

under the Northwest Forest Plan. We continue to rely on both federal land management 

agencies to provide for the habitat needs of Oregon Coast coho salmon. To do this, both 

agencies must ensure their actions protect existing high quality habitat and implement actions 

to restore ecological process in the short-term and long-term. 

Regulatory mechanisms for agriculture and rural development activities

Across all populations of Oregon Coast coho salmon, rural development and land use activities 

(residential, agricultural, etc.) occupy lands adjacent to Oregon Coast coho salmon habitat 

(Burnett et al. 2007). Much of this development is in habitat considered to have had the largest 

amount of rearing habitat for Oregon Coast coho salmon, related to assessments of high 

intrinsic potential (floodplain areas, low gradient stream reaches with historically high habitat 

complexity) but has been degraded by past management activities (Burnett et al. 2007).

The regulatory mechanisms that provide a ‘regulatory backstop’ to voluntary efforts include:

• Oregon’s land use program and management practices, including the Oregon Coastal 

Management Program and coordinated efforts with the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA) to implement the National Flood Insurance Program in 

ways that maintain natural floodplain functions; and

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 3-26

• state and federal programs intended to achieve water quality standards. These include 

the Oregon Administrative Rules associated with the Agricultural Water Quality 

Management Program (implemented though locally adopted rules), state pesticide 

programs, noxious weed control programs, the state nonpoint source program, the

federal pesticide labeling program, and irrigation and water availability regulations.

NMFS has concerns, however, that existing regulatory mechanisms may not be adequate to 

achieve water quality criteria that are related to coho salmon conservation. For example, we 

are concerned that the existing regulatory mechanisms have yet to demonstrate significant 

progress in meeting water quality standards. Regarding restoration of past habitat losses, there 

is no requirement or robust program to restore habitat degraded by ‘legacy actions’ which 

account for a considerable amount of loss and degradation of Oregon Coast coho salmon 

habitat in rural areas. Regarding ongoing agricultural actions, continuing and newly initiated 

regulatory mechanisms and voluntary actions have potential, but it is not yet clear that such 

actions are effective at achieving the goals of Agriculture Water Quality Management Area 

plans.

The water quality management program is ‘outcome based’ related to achieving water quality 

standards, not prescriptive or practice-based, and at this point does not have an effective means 

to measure progress towards meeting state water temperature standards. For riparian 

conditions related to water quality, this will continue to make the requirements of this program 

difficult to enforce. Under existing regulations, riparian areas, levees and dikes devoid of 

riparian vegetation due to agricultural activities are subject to regulation by the state but past 

riparian loss is not.

Regarding future water quantity, water withdrawals to meet demands for irrigation and 

population growth continue to reduce instream flows and affect aquatic species in some stream 

systems, including in the Umpqua River stratum. A water leasing program is available through 

contracts with the Oregon Water Resources Department and there is some uncertainty about 

how this program will assure adequate instream flow for Oregon coast coho salmon. The 

available information leads us to conclude that it will take significant increases in funding and

other resources to ensure that water quality criteria are met and coho salmon habitat is restored 

to a significant extent. 

Regulatory mechanisms for instream activities 

Federal Clean Water Act Fill and Removal Permitting

Several sections of the Federal Clean Water Act, such as section 401, (water quality 

certification), section 402 (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System), and section 404 

(discharge of fill into waters of the United States) and state removal fill permitting regulate 

activities that might degrade salmon habitat. Despite the existence and enforcement of this law, 

a significant percentage of stream reaches in the range of the Oregon Coast coho salmon do not 

meet current water quality standards. For instance, many of the populations of this ESU have 

degraded water quality identified as a secondary limiting factor (see Table 3-2). It is unlikely 

that programs carried out under the Clean Water Act alone are sufficient to protect coho salmon 

habitat in a condition that would provide for sustainable populations during good and poor 

marine conditions.

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 3-27

A recent development that could improve water quality is an effort by the Oregon Department 

of State Lands to develop a streamlined ‘General Authorization’ under the Removal-Fill Law 

that will allow installation of beaver dam analogues. Once final, beaver dam analogues meeting 

conditions of the rule would be a pre-authorized use, not requiring individual permits. This will 

encourage the use of beaver dam analogues and beaver for waterway restoration projects 

benefiting coho salmon (Oregon 2016).

Gravel Mining

Improperly managed gravel mining can have potential adverse effects on Oregon Coast coho 

salmon habitat. Gravel mining results in less complex streambed with reduced refuge areas for 

juvenile coho salmon. Gravel mining can alter salmonid food webs and reduce the amount of 

prey available for juvenile salmonids. Removal of riverbed substrates may also alter the 

relationship between sediment load and shear stress forces and increase bank and channel 

erosion. This disrupts channel form, and can also disrupt the processes of channel formation and 

habitat development (Lagasse et al. 1980; Waters 1995). Operation of heavy equipment in the 

river channel or riparian areas can result in disturbance of vegetation, exposure of bare soil to 

erosive forces, and spills or releases of petroleum-based contaminants.

Gravel mining has occurred in various areas throughout the freshwater range of Oregon Coast

coho salmon, but is currently only in the Nehalem, Trask, Kilchis, and Wilson Rivers. The 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issues permits under section 404 of the Clean Water Act and 

section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act for gravel mining. Although gravel mining activities 

using similar methods occur throughout Oregon, application of Corps of Engineers jurisdiction 

has been inconsistent with gravel mining permits required on some rivers (Umpqua River) but 

not on others (Tillamook area rivers). At the state level, gravel mining requires a permit from 

Oregon Department of State Lands under the Removal-Fill Law (ORS 196.795-990). 

Application of the state’s jurisdiction and permitting process has been more consistent 

throughout the domain. Under this regulatory environment, gravel mining has ceased in some 

areas (South Fork Coquille and Umpqua Rivers), but it remains a concern in the Tillamook 

area rivers.

In 1992, after ODFW expressed concerns about negative impacts on chum salmon habitat, the 

state of Oregon negotiated a mediated gravel agreement for Tillamook County gravel mining. 

Originally, the agreement included cessation of all mining after 1997. In 1999, the agreement 

was amended to allow mining at three sites in the Wilson, Kilchis, and Trask Rivers. This 

agreement was amended again in 2009 to allow mining at nine sites in the Wilson, Kilchis, 

Trask, Miami, and Nehalem Rivers. The volume of gravel harvested from these rivers currently 

is greatly reduced compared to historical levels. However, site visits by NMFS in 2015 found the 

mining sites on the Wilson, Kilchis, and Trask Rivers all suffer from incision, bank erosion, and 

flat cross-section topographies. These are all signs that gravel removal is occurring in excess and 

degrading stream morphology (NMFS 2005b, Federal Interagency Working Group 2006). NMFS 

is concerned by the current condition of the Wilson, Kilchis, and Trask River sites, the lack of 

implementing site-level best management practices (see bar form retention in Federal 

Interagency Working Group 2006) at these sites, and the increasing number of sites permitted by 

the state since the 1992 cessation.

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 3-28

Regulatory mechanisms for floodplain development

Development in floodplains can disconnect this important area from river channels and destroy 

natural riparian and wetland vegetation. Altering the natural processes that allow habitat to form 

and recover from disturbances, such as floods, can affect multiple stages of the salmon life cycle 

and impede their survival and long-term recovery. In Chapter 6, we include recommendations on 

to modify statutes, regulations, or codes to avoid floodplain development in areas where 

floodplain function is most critical for salmon.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) consulted with NMFS under Section 7 of 

the ESA to determine whether implementation of its National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) 

in Oregon impacts the survival of listed species including Oregon Coast coho salmon, which

depend on healthy, functioning floodplain habitat (NMFS 2016b). Through the consultation 

process, NMFS determined that the NFIP in Oregon reduces the quantity and quality of 

floodplain and in-channel habitat, which will jeopardize the continued existence of 17 marine 

and anadromous species (including Oregon Coast coho salmon) and also adversely modify 

critical habitat. NMFS provided a reasonable and prudent alternative (RPA) to ensure FEMA’s 

implementation of the NFIP avoids harming these species.

Regulatory mechanisms affecting beaver pond availability

In Oregon Coast streams, beaver dams create valuable summer and winter habitat for coho 

salmon (Leidholt-Bruner et al. 1992; ODFW 2005c). Much of this habitat has been lost postEuropean settlement to forestry and agricultural practices (ODFW 2005c). Lack of the type of 

habitat provided by beaver ponds has been identified as limiting the production of Oregon Coast 

coho salmon repeatedly (Nickelson et al. 1992; ODFW 2005c; ODFW 2007; Stout et al. 2012). 

Restoring beaver and beaver dams has proven effective at increasing juvenile coho salmon 

populations (Kemp et al. 2012) including on the Oregon Coast (Pollock et al. 2015).

On private land in Oregon, beaver are classified as a predatory species (ORS 610.002);

landowners may lethally remove beaver without a permit from ODFW or requirement to report. 

On public land, beaver are classified as a protected furbearer (ORS 496.004 and OAR 635-050-

0050). ODFW requires a permit to take protected furbearers. For beaver, this permit includes a 

designated trapping season, but does not limit the numbers of beaver taken. ODFW requires a 

permit to hold and relocate beaver (ORS 497.308) and has published beaver relocation 

guidelines. An Oregon Department of State Lands permit for beaver dam removal recently 

became required under their ‘large woody debris’ definition to remove any volume within 

essential salmonid habitat or more than 50 cubic yards outside of essential salmonid habitat 

(OAR 141-085).

The Oregon Department of State Lands is currently engaged in a rulemaking process to develop 

a streamlined ‘General Authorization’ under the Removal-Fill Law allowing installation of 

beaver dam analogues. Once final, beaver dam analogues meeting conditions of the rule would 

be a pre-authorized use, not requiring individual permits. This will encourage the use of beaver 

dam analogues and beaver for waterway restoration projects benefiting coho salmon. The 

rulemaking is anticipated to be complete in December 2016.

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 3-29

The mission of the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) Wildlife 

Services is to provide federal leadership and expertise to resolve wildlife conflicts to allow 

people and wildlife to coexist. Wildlife Services is not a regulatory agency and, therefore,

works within the regulatory bounds of Oregon State law. For the five-year period of 2008-

2012, Wildlife Services trapped over 2,800 beaver throughout Oregon, killing all but 10 of 

them. The number of beaver killed within the Oregon Coast domain is not available, nor do we 

have more recent numbers at this time.

Are Existing Regulatory Mechanisms Adequate?

In summary, positive changes in the regulation and management of fisheries and hatchery 

production have manifested increases in Oregon Coast coho salmon abundance. Benefits from 

these regulatory changes will likely continue. As stated in our final listing determination for 

Oregon Coast coho salmon in 2011: “These (harvest and hatchery regulations) are unlikely to be 

weakened in the future.” 

We are concerned with current regulations protecting habitat is some cases. For example, there is 

continuing concern that “current forest practices could also be causing or contributing to 

degradation of water quality (Oregon 2015).” In addition, there is a proposal for the state to 

transfer ownership of the Elliott State Forest to another entity, which could result in a change in 

the applicable regulatory mechanisms and a reduction in habitat protection for Oregon Coast

coho salmon. Such changes could pose further risk to ESU viability, particularly in the face of 

future climate change. 

Regarding spawning and rearing habitat (including estuaries), however, the state of Oregon and 

numerous stakeholders prefer reliance on voluntary actions, not regulatory mechanisms, to 

protect the environment and achieve coho salmon recovery goals. These volunteer efforts are 

vital to habitat restoration efforts, but may not be enough to achieve long-term coho salmon 

recovery without additional regulatory protection. The question NMFS must consider, therefore, 

is if the combination of voluntary measures and regulatory mechanisms is adequate to ensure the 

long-term health of Oregon Coast coho salmon habitat.

While NMFS is encouraged by the multiple voluntary and regulatory revisions by state, federal, 

and non-governmental organizations, as our 2016 5-Year Review (NMFS 2016c) states “at this 

time we do not have information that would reveal improvements in (ESU-wide) habitat quality, 

quantity, and function.” Consequently, we remain concerned about the adequacy of existing 

voluntary and regulatory mechanisms to stop habitat conditions from further decline in the 

future. We recognize the challenges associated with monitoring habitat conditions and will 

continue to work with partners to obtain the best information available and assess it in the 

context of the other listing factors.

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 3-30

3.3.5 Factor E. Other natural or human-made factors affecting the species’

continued existence

Threat: Hatchery fish interacting with natural-origin coho salmon in the wild

Primary related limiting factors: Influence from hatchery fish could reduce abundance,

productivity, and diversity of coho salmon.

Threat: Changes in ocean conditions

Primary related limiting factor: Changes in ocean conditions could reduce coho survival and 

fitness, and thereby influence species abundance and productivity.

Threat: Climate change

Primary related limiting factors: Climate change could result in further degradation of 

freshwater and estuarine habitats, and thereby affect coho salmon abundance and productivity.

Threat: Major Cascadian Subduction Zone Earthquake

Primary related limiting factors: A major earthquake could quickly degrade freshwater and 

estuarine habitats along the Oregon coast, thus affecting coho salmon abundance, productivity, 

and spatial structure. 

Discussion of Current Concerns for Factor E

Hatchery influence

Since ESA listing, threats posed by hatchery practices have largely been addressed. ODFW has 

taken numerous steps to minimize adverse impacts of hatcheries on the Oregon coast coho 

salmon ESU. Consequently, the BRT (Stout et al. 2012) and NWFSC (2015) found that hatchery

practices that were detrimental to the long-term viability of this ESU have been eliminated.

Changes in ODFW hatchery management, including the most recent termination of coho salmon 

releases from hatcheries in the Salmon North Umpqua River, have resulted in substantial 

decreases in the proportion of hatchery fish on the spawning grounds in the North Coast, MidCoast, and Umpqua Strata. Since 2008, the proportion of hatchery-origin coho salmon has been 

reduced to very low levels for the individual strata and the ESU as a whole.

The hatchery programs that remain are managed to limit the proportion of hatchery fish on 

natural spawning grounds. ODFW hatchery programs are managed consistent with the state’s 

Native Fish Conservation Policy (OAR 635.007.0502 -- 0509) and the Fish Hatchery 

Management Policy (OAR 635.007.0542 -- 0548). ODFW also coordinates with NMFS for 

approval of all hatcheries programs that may affect Oregon Coast coho salmon through the 

submission of federal Hatchery Genetic Management Plans. Given program changes and 

management oversight, hatchery fish do not currently limit, and are not expected to limit, Oregon 

Coast coho salmon natural production.

ODFW’s Coastal Multi-Species Conservation and Management Plan (2014) discusses hatchery 

production levels. Hatchery coho salmon releases are limited to the basins supporting the 

Nehalem, Trask, and South Umpqua populations. Chinook salmon and/or steelhead, however, 

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 3-31

are being released in varying numbers in the basins supporting the Necanicum, Nehalem, 

Tillamook, Nestucca, Siletz, Alsea, Siuslaw, Umpqua, Tenmile, Coos Bay, and Coquille coho 

salmon populations.

Changes in ocean conditions 

Ocean conditions in the Pacific Northwest have exhibited patterns of recurring, decadal-scale 

variability (including the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the El Ninõ Southern Oscillation), and 

correlations exist between these oceanic changes and salmon abundance in the Pacific Northwest 

(Burke et al. 2013; Mantua et al. 1997; Rupp et al. 2012; Malick et al. 2015; Stout et al. 2012). 

The marine survival of Oregon Coast coho salmon has been quite variable depending on whether 

marine conditions were good or poor. 

Today, with harvest less of a constraint than in the past, marine survival is the principle driver of 

interannual and interdecadal variation in Oregon Coast coho salmon abundance (NWFSC 2015). 

Survivals were relatively high in the 1970’s and late 1980’s, followed by extremely low survival 

in the mid-1990s. Survivals improved in the late 1990’s through early 2000s. In recent years, 

good ocean productivity and survival rates have contributed to the rebound of the Oregon Coast 

coho salmon ESU.

Concerns remain regarding how prolonged periods of poor marine survival caused by 

unfavorable ocean conditions may affect the population viability parameters of abundance, 

productivity, spatial structure, and diversity (Stout et al. 2012; NWFSC 2015; NMFS 2016c). 

Oregon Coast coho salmon have persisted through many favorable-unfavorable ocean/climate 

cycles in the past. However, in the past much of their freshwater habitat was in good condition, 

buffering the effects of ocean/climate variability on population abundance and productivity. It is 

uncertain how these populations will fare in future periods of poor ocean survival when their 

freshwater, estuary, and nearshore marine habitats are in a degraded condition.

As discussed in the following section, the effects of climate change will likely pose additional 

concerns for the productivity of marine habitats (Weitkamp 2016). The International Panel on 

Climate Change (IPCC) recently determined that by the end of the century global sea level is 

expected to rise by 0.3 m (low emissions) to 0.9 m (high emissions) and the oceans are expected 

to become more acidic (IPCC 2014). These and other effects of climate change (e.g., increased

temperature, hypoxia, and acidification) will have direct impacts on the food webs that salmon 

rely on in marine habitats to grow and survive. 

Effects of climate change

The potential effects of global climate change have emerged as a critical concern for this species. 

Climate change continues to actively alter environments around the globe as temperature and 

precipitation patterns change and become more variable. The year 2015 broke numerous global 

records, including highest greenhouse gas concentration, highest land and sea surface 

temperatures, highest upper ocean heat content and sea level, and smallest maximum ice extent 

in the Arctic (Bluden and Arndt 2016). The year 2016 is on track to surpass global temperature 

records set in 2015; global temperatures recorded between January and June 2016 (1.05 °C 

above the 20th century average) are 0.85 °C above those set in 2015 (0.20 °C above the 20th 

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 3-32

century average). (NOAA website: www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2016/6/supplemental/page2).

Likely changes across the Pacific Northwest in temperature, precipitation, wind patterns, ocean 

acidification, and sea-level height due to climate change could affect survival and productivity of 

Oregon Coast coho salmon in their freshwater, estuarine, and marine habitats. Recent 

descriptions on expected impacts to Pacific salmon and their ecosystems include Mote et al. 

2003, Crozier et al. 2008, Martins et al. 2012, Beechie et al. 2012, Wainwright and Weitkamp 

2013, and Weitkamp 2016. 

This section summarizes the findings from a recent climate change study by Weitkamp (2016). 

The full report by Weitkamp and other information are available on the NMFS website: 

www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov. 

The Oregon Coast coho salmon life cycle relies on three main habitat types for growth and 

survival —freshwater rivers and lakes, estuaries, and marine environments—making them 

particularly vulnerable to environmental variation (Morrison et al. 2016). While all habitats used 

by coho salmon will be affected by climate change, the impacts and certainty of the change vary 

by the habitat type. Some effects (e.g., increasing temperature) affect salmon at all life stages, 

while others are habitat specific, such as flow variation in freshwater, sea-level rise in estuaries, 

and upwelling in the ocean. In addition, terrestrial forest habitats are also essential to coho 

salmon because they determine the quality of freshwater habitats by influencing the types of 

sediments in spawning habitats and the abundance and structure of pools in juvenile rearing 

habitats (Cedarholm and Reid 1987). 

Throughout the life cycle of Oregon Coast coho salmon, there are a numerous potential effects of 

climate change (Figure 3-7) (Stout et al. 2012; Wainwright and Weitkamp 2013; Weitkamp 

2016). The main predicted effects in terrestrial and freshwater habitats include warmer, drier 

summers, and reduced snowpack (only the Umpqua is snow driven for Oregon Coast coho

salmon). Since most streams occupied by Oregon Coast coho salmon are much less reliant on 

snowpack for water delivery than elsewhere in the Pacific Northwest (Wainwright and 

Weitkamp 2013; Scalzitti and Kochanski 2016), expected increases in maximum stream 

temperatures and decreases in minimum flows are expected to be modest compared to in other 

snow-driven basins in the Northwest (Beechie et al. 2012; Dalton et al. 2013). However, more 

intense precipitation during storms is also predicted (IPCC 2014), which could increase high 

flow events and be detrimental for salmon habitats (Crozier et al. 2008). For example, Ward et 

al. (2015) documented increasing variation in flow for Puget Sound rivers over the last 60 years 

and determined it had the most negative effect on Chinook salmon survival of any climate signal 

considered (Weitkamp 2016).

The impacts of climate change on the productivity of Oregon Coast coho salmon populations 

will vary by watershed condition and habitat type. In freshwater habitats, lower summer flows, 

higher summer stream temperatures, and increased winter floods, would affect coho salmon by 

reducing available summer rearing habitat, increasing potential scour and egg loss in spawning 

habitat, increasing thermal stress, and increasing predation risk. Increasing temperatures will 

have physiological effects on salmon, with increased stress to neuroendocrine, cardiorespiratory, 

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 3-33

immune, osmoregulatory, and reproductive systems, potentially reducing survival and 

reproductive success (Whitney et al. 2016). In addition, changes in stream temperature regimes 

will likely lead to shifts in the distributions of native species and provide ‘invasion opportunities’

for exotic species, resulting in increased predator-prey interactions for juvenile coho salmon.

Figure 3-7. The BRT’s conceptual diagram showing pathways by which climate influences the salmon life cycle (Stout 

et al. 2012).

In estuarine habitats, the main physical effects are predicted to be rising sea level and increasing 

water temperatures. As sea levels rise, terrestrial habitats will be flooded and tidal wetlands will 

be submerged (Kirwan et al. 2010). For Oregon coast estuaries, the widespread presence of dikes 

would restrict estuary expansion, likely resulting in a near-term loss of wetland habitats for coho 

salmon (Wainwright and Weitkamp 2013). Sea-level rise will also result in greater intrusion of 

marine water into estuaries, resulting in an overall increase in salinity, which will also contribute 

to changes in estuarine floral and faunal communities (Kennedy 1990). In addition to reducing 

intertidal wetland habitats, these changes could increase thermal stress, increase predation risk, 

and result in unpredictable changes in biological community composition, thus influencing coho 

salmon growth and survival. For example, increased temperature upstream of or in estuaries may 

provide behavioral cues that cause young salmon to enter marine waters earlier than normal, 

resulting in a mismatch between the timing of ocean entry and the timing of seasonal 

productivity of marine food webs (Weitkamp et al. 2014). Similarly, early strong freshets may 

flush juvenile salmon to estuary or ocean environments before they are physiologically ready, 

which might increase predation risks (Limburg et al. 2016).

In marine habitats, the temperature of marine waters is increasing globally at a rate of 0.06

°C/decade (NOAA website, http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/). The timing of peak abundances of 

many larval fishes in the California Current, including those commonly consumed by juvenile 

coho and other salmon (Daly et al. 2009), are becoming earlier as surface temperatures increase 

(Asch 2015). These rising ocean temperatures are predicted to cause a poleward shift in fish 

distributions at a rate of 30 kilometers/decade and to deeper waters at 3.5 m/decade (Cheung et 

al. 2014). Oregon Coast coho salmon rely on conditions in the California Current marine 

ecosystem for growth and survival. This ecosystem, like other eastern boundary currents, is 

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 3-34

dependent on wind-driven upwelling for its extremely high productivity (Bakun 1990; Checkley 

and Barth 2009; Chavez and Messié 2009). Minor changes to the timing, intensity, or duration of 

upwelling can have huge effects on the productivity of the ecosystem (Black et al. 2014; 

Peterson et al. 2014), and, thus, the productivity of Oregon Coast coho salmon. There are a 

number of physical changes in marine habitats that would likely affect coho salmon, including 

higher water temperature, intensified upwelling, delayed spring transition, intensified 

stratification, and increasing acidity in coastal waters. Of these, only intensified upwelling would 

be expected to benefit coastal-rearing salmon; all the other effects would likely be negative. 

The ESU remains particularly vulnerable to near-term and long-term climate effects because of 

the long-term loss of high quality rearing habitat. In the short term, the ESU could rapidly

decline to the low abundance seen in the mid-1990s when ocean conditions cycled back to a

period of poor survival for coho salmon. In the long term, global climate change could lead to a

downward trend in freshwater and marine coho salmon habitat compared to current conditions. 

While considerable uncertainty exists about the magnitude that most of the specific effects of

climate change will have on the coho salmon habitat, NMFS and the NWFSC (2015) remain

concerned that most changes associated with climate change could result in poorer and more

variable habitat conditions for Oregon Coast coho salmon in freshwater, estuarine, and marine

environments (Table 3-5). Given this uncertainty, NMFS and the NWFSC stress that it is critical 

that the species is resilient enough to survive catastrophic changes in the environment, including 

events such as climate change and decreases in ocean productivity (NWFSC 2015). 

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 3-35

Table 3-5. Summary of effects of physical climate changes on Oregon Coast coho salmon by habitat type. Strength 

and direction of effects are rated from strongly positive (+ +) through neutral (0) to strongly negative (– –). (Table 

14 in Stout et al. 2012, modified from Wainwright and Weitkamp 2013.)

Physical change

Certainty of

change

Processes affecting salmon

Effect on

salmon

Certainty of

effect

Terrestrial

Warmer, drier 

summers

Moderate

Increased number and intensity of fires, increased tree stress 

and disease affect large woody debris, sediment supplies, 

riparian zone structure

0 to – – Low

Reduced 

snowpack High Increased growth of higher elevation forests affect large woody debris, sediment, riparian zone structure + to 0 Low

Freshwater

Reduced summer flow High Less accessible summer rearing habitat – Moderate

Earlier peak flow High* Potential migration timing mismatch

0 to –

(Umpqua:

0 to –)

Moderate

Increased floods Moderate* Redd disruption, juvenile displacement, upstream

migration

0 to –

(Umpqua:

– to –)

Moderate

Higher summer 

stream temps

Moderate

Thermal stress, restricted habitat availability, increased 

susceptibility to disease and parasites – to – – Moderate

Estuarine

Higher sea level Moderate Reduced availability of wetland habitats – to – – High

Higher water 

temperature

Moderate Thermal stress, increased susceptibility to disease 

and parasites – to – – Moderate

Combined effects Changing estuarine ecosystem composition and structure + to – – Low

Ocean

Higher ocean 

temperature

High Thermal stress, shifts in migration, range shifts, susceptibility

to disease and parasites – to – – Moderate

Intensified 

upwelling

Moderate

Increased nutrients (food supply), coastal cooling, 

ecosystem shifts; increased offshore transport + + to 0 Low

Delayed spring 

transition

Low

Food timing mismatch with outmigrants, ecosystem

shifts 0 to – Low

Intensified 

stratification

Moderate

Reduced upwelling and mixing lead to reduced coastal

production and reduced food supply

0 to – – Low

Increased acidity High Disruption of food supply, ecosystem shifts – to – – Moderate

Combined effects

Changing composition and structure of ecosystem, changing 

food supply and predation + to – – Low

*Effects are strongest and most certain in higher elevation snow-fed basins.

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 3-36

This page intentionally left blank.

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 4-1

4. Recovery Goals and Delisting Criteria for the 

Oregon Coast Coho Salmon ESU 

This chapter describes the recovery goals and delisting criteria for Oregon Coast coho salmon. In 

the simplest terms, NMFS will remove the Oregon Coast coho salmon from federal protection 

under the ESA when we determine that:

• The species has achieved a biological status consistent with recovery—the best available 

information indicates it has sufficient abundance, population growth rate, population 

spatial structure, and diversity to indicate it has met the biological recovery goals (see 

Section 4.2).

• Factors that led to ESA listing (described in Chapter 3) have been reduced or eliminated 

to the point where federal protection under the ESA is no longer needed, and there is 

reasonable certainty that the relevant regulatory mechanisms are adequate to protect 

Oregon Coast coho salmon sustainability. 

Section 4.1 describes the statutory requirements for recovery and removing Oregon Coast coho 

salmon from the list of threatened and endangered species; Section 4.2 describes the biological 

recovery criteria for Oregon Coast coho salmon based on the work of the ONCC TRT; Section 

4.3 describes goals and criteria for each of the five listing factors; and Section 4.4 describes how 

we intend to make a listing determination considering the biological status and five listing 

factors. Section 4.4 also introduces a delisting framework to assess progress towards recovery.

In accordance with our responsibilities under section 4(c)(2) of the ESA, NMFS will conduct 

reviews of Oregon Coast coho salmon ESU status at least once every five years to evaluate the 

status of the ESU and gauge progress toward recovery. 

4.1 Endangered Species Act Requirements

Under the ESA, NMFS can ‘delist’ a species—remove it from the list of threatened and 

endangered species—when the species is no longer in danger of extinction or likely to become 

endangered within the foreseeable future.18 F

19 The ESA requires that recovery plans; “...to the 

maximum extent practicable ..., incorporate ... objective, measurable criteria which, when met, 

would result in a determination in accordance with the provisions of the ESA that the species be 

removed from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (50 CFR 17.11 

and 17.12)....” The terms ‘recovered’ and ‘delisted’ are sometimes used interchangeably. NMFS 

can ‘delist’ a species based on a review of the five listing factors in ESA section 4(a). The 

recovery criteria inform the determination in ESA section 4(c) to reclassify or remove a species 

from the list.

19 In this recovery plan, when considering the term ‘foreseeable future’ we use the DSS definition of ESU persistence: ESU will 

persist over the next 100 years.

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016

 
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 4-2

This section of the Plan presents a set of ‘objective, measureable criteria’ for Oregon Coast coho 

salmon, that we consider practicable, as called for in the ESA, that include the most accurate, 

practicable and up-to-date information available. These criteria are at the ESU and stratum 

scales, since it is, at this time, not practicable to create scientifically based goals, strategies and 

actions at the population scale, given the data gaps and scientific uncertainties that remain. 

The purposes of the ESA include providing a means to conserve the ecosystems on which 

endangered species and threatened species depend. While NMFS’ ESA goal is to achieve 

recovery and the delisting criteria, we suggest that aiming for Oregon’s ‘broad sense recovery 

goals’ is the best way to ensure that we meet and surpass ESA requirements for recovery and 

delisting. Broad sense recovery recognizes the social and economic value of the ESU, and the 

potential for wild fish to once again support robust commercial and recreational fisheries that 

fuel economic development on the Oregon coast. In addition, broad sense recovery recognizes 

the essential role of salmon as a keystone species that delivers vital marine-derived nutrients into 

our coastal watersheds. Salmon are a lynchpin to the ecological, economic, and cultural health of 

the coast—when we restore our salmon runs and habitats, we also improve the health of our 

rivers, lands, communities, and economies. Aiming for more than simply returning the Oregon 

Coast coho salmon ESU to viability is consistent with the 2014-2018 Strategies Goals and 

Objectives of the U.S. Department of Commerce (U.S. Department of Commerce 2014).

NMFS applies two kinds of ESA recovery, or delisting, criteria. The first, biological recovery 

criteria, examines the biological health (viability, or sustainability and persistence) of the species 

(§4.2). The second is based on ESA section 4(a)(1) and describes the status of the five listing 

factors and the human activities (threats) that contributed to the decline in the status of the 

species. The five listing factors are discussed in Chapter 3 and constitute a major part of the 

framework for evaluating the status of the species. The listing factor criteria define the 

conditions under which the listing factors, or threats, can be considered to be addressed or 

mitigated. Together, the biological recovery criteria and listing factor criteria make up the 

‘objective, measurable criteria’ [hereinafter referred to as delisting criteria] required under 

section 4(f)(1)(B)(ii) for the delisting decision.

When making a listing determination, NMFS considers the status of the species (viability 

assessment), the five ESA listing factors, limiting factors and threats, and actions that have been 

taken to help recovery the species. Figure 4-1 shows the recovery actions and research, 

monitoring, and evaluation (on the left) inform the analyses and assessments. The analysis of the 

five listing factors is shown across the top. The viability assessments of the populations are 

shown to be aggregated to the stratum level and the strata are aggregated to the species level. 

Finally, the scroll on the right shows that we will consider both the listing factor analysis and 

species viability assessment when we make a decision to list or delist a species.

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 4-3

Figure 4-1. Components of a listing determination. 

Text Box 4-1 contrasts the listing status of bald eagles and Oregon Coast coho salmon as an 

example of the importance of examining the five listing factors in making a delisting 

determination in addition to the biological status of a species.

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 4-4

4.2 Biological Recovery Criteria

4.2.1 Background: General Framework for Describing Viable (Sustainable) 

Salmon Populations 

Viability is a key concept within the context of the Endangered Species Act. A Viable 

Salmonid Population is an independent population of any Pacific salmon or steelhead that has a 

negligible risk of extinction due to threats from demographic variation, local environmental 

variation, and genetic changes over a 100-year time frame (McElhany et al. 2000). NMFS 

introduced four attributes to evaluate the viability1 9F

20 of a salmon population in its technical 

memorandum “Viable Salmonid Populations and the Recovery of Evolutionarily Significant 

Units” (McElhany et al. 2000). These four attributes—abundance, population growth rate, 

population spatial structure, and diversity—make up the viable salmonid population (VSP) 

parameters, which NMFS scientists use to measure biological status as part of salmon recovery. 

The VSP parameters form the basis for our evaluations of individual salmon populations, which 

taken together comprise species under the ESA. The parameters are closely associated, such 

that improvements in one parameter typically cause, or are related to, improvements in another 

parameter. For example, improvements in population growth rate might depend on increased 

diversity or habitat quality, and be accompanied by increased abundance and spatial structure.

We describe these parameters below. Section 4.2.2 describes how the ONCC TRT applied them 

to define biological criteria for evaluating the status of Oregon Coast coho salmon populations 

and measuring progress towards ESU recovery (Wainwright et al. 2008).

20 See the definitions of viable, sustainable, and persistent populations in the glossary. 

Text Box 4-1

Comparing Bald Eagles and Oregon Coast Coho Salmon:

The Importance of Regulatory Protections in ESA Listing Determinations.

Similar to Oregon Coast coho salmon, bald eagles in the lower 48 U.S. states were once abundant, but human 

activities led to drastic declines in their numbers. Both species were listed under the Endangered Species Act.

Since ESA listing, the numbers of both species have increased from their lowest point. In 2007, the USFWS 

removed bald eagles in the lower 48 states from the list of threatened and endangered species. NMFS continues 

to retain the listing of Oregon Coast coho salmon as threatened. 

Why are Oregon Coast coho still listed when bald eagles are not? The threats that led to the ESA listing of 

bald eagles (shooting and chemicals including DDT) have been greatly reduced, and regulatory mechanisms (two 

federal statutes - the Migratory Bird Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act) continue to protect bald 

eagles, greatly reducing future threats to the survival of bald eagles. In comparison, while some factors leading to 

ESA listing of Oregon Coast coho (harvest and hatcheries) have been addressed, others (habitat loss and 

degradation) have not been adequately reduced or addressed and continue to threaten the species. A 

combination of voluntary efforts and regulatory protections for Oregon Coast coho salmon are needed to reduce 

or eliminate remaining threats and support the sustainability and persistence of the Oregon Coast coho salmon 

ESU, before and after delisting. 

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016

 
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 4-5

Abundance

Abundance refers to the number of adult fish returning to spawn, as measured over a specific 

number of years. Abundance is recognized as an important measure because, small populations 

are at greater risk of extinction than large populations. This is primarily because several 

processes that affect population health operate differently in small populations than they do in 

large populations. The ONCC TRT described20 F

21 two abundance levels that NMFS thinks are 

particularly important: ‘viable’ (meaning having a negligible risk of extinction over a 100 year 

time frame) and ‘critical’ (where low numbers of fish produce a high risk of extinction over a 

short time period). 

Population Growth Rate or Productivity

Population growth rate (i.e. productivity over the entire life cycle), and factors that affect 

population growth rate provide information on how well a population is performing in all the 

habitats it occupies throughout the life cycle. Productivity when the abundance is low is 

important because it is critical that a population at increased risk of extinction be able to 

reproduce successfully in order to rebuild to higher abundance levels. When the ecosystem is 

functioning properly, growth rates can decline following peak years and still maintain a healthy 

population. However, estimates of productivity that indicate a population is consistently failing 

to replace itself are an indicator of increased extinction risk. 

Spatial Structure

Spatial structure identifies characteristics of a fish population’s geographic distribution, 

including the pattern of connections among patches of occupied habitats within the population.

Spatial structure is important because a widespread population is more resilient to local, shortterm habitat disruptions (such as floods or landslides) and because small-scale local adaptations 

contribute to evolutionary processes that maintain adaptability of the population as a whole.

Diversity

Diversity, or variations within and among populations, refers to the distribution of traits among 

and within fish populations, which has important effects on population health. Some of these

traits are completely genetically based, whereas others vary because of a combination of genetic

and environmental factors. This latter group can include the outward appearance (shape, 

structure, color, patterns, etc.) of an individual salmon and the form and structure of the internal 

parts like bones and organs, and behavioral characteristics. Together, they can include variations 

in fertility, run timing, and spawn timing, juvenile behavior, age when they migrate to the 

ocean, age at maturity, egg size, developmental rate, ocean distribution patterns, male and

female spawning behavior, physiology, and molecular genetic characteristics. 

21 Wainwright et al. 2008

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016

 
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 4-6

Because different portions of salmon habitat can change over time, there are three general 

reasons why diversity is important for species and population health:

• Diversity allows a species to use a wider array of environments 

• Diversity protects a species against short-term changes in the environment. 

• Genetic diversity provides the raw material for surviving long-term environmental 

change.

4.2.2 Biological Recovery Criteria for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon

In developing its technical memorandum “Biological Recovery Criteria for the Oregon Coast 

Coho Salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit” (Wainwright et al. 2008), the ONCC TRT used a 

two-step process: (1) develop criteria and then (2) implement it in a status review of the species.

Development of Biological Recovery Criteria

The framework described in Section 4.2.1 was intentionally general, and NMFS expected each

technical recovery team (as described in Chapter 1) to apply it to a wide variety of conditions 

and salmon populations by developing specific delisting criteria for each protected species. At 

the request of the NMFS Northwest Regional Office, the ONCC TRT21 F

22 developed and published 

a means to evaluate the current and future biological status of the Oregon Coast coho salmon 

ESU and to assess progress towards meeting the biological recovery based on the general 

framework described in Section 4.2.1 (Wainwright et al, 2008).

The ONCC TRT’s approach focuses first on the biological status of Oregon Coast coho salmon 

at the population level, primarily the 21 independent populations. The combined status of the 

populations is then used to determine the status of the Oregon Coast coho salmon ESU as a 

whole. Among other information, the ONCC TRT relied on the ODFW annual surveys of adult 

and juvenile coho salmon to provide the basic data for determining the status of each population. 

The ONCC TRT accomplished this by:

• identifying biological properties that are important to the health of populations; 

• reviewing the data available from ODFW's monitoring programs; 

• using scientific literature, recent research findings, and the knowledge of biologists most 

familiar with Oregon Coast coho salmon; and

• creating criteria to specifically translate monitoring data into an index of status.

The ONCC TRT created ‘objective and measurable’ criteria that could be applied to each 

population to determine its status. The ONCC TRT also developed a way to ‘roll up’ the scores 

for each population into scores for the whole ESU. Because populations from rivers that are 

close together tend to be similar, the ONCC TRT identified five groupings of similar populations, 

termed ‘strata.’ These strata represent the genetic and geographic similarities among populations 

such that preservation of sustainable populations within each stratum will conserve major genetic 

diversity within the ESU, and spread risks of losing genetic and geographic diversity due to

22 Specifically, the Oregon Coast Workgroup of the Oregon and Northern California Coasts Technical Recovery Team (ONCC 

TRT).

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016

 
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 4-7

catastrophes (Wainwright et al. 2008). The ONCC TRT approach determines the status of each 

individual stratum based on the status of its member populations, and then combines the status of 

the five strata to determine the status of the Oregon Coast coho salmon ESU.

The ONCC TRT developed two principle elements within the biological criteria that describe a 

sustainable stratum and ESU: 

• Most (more than half) of the independent populations in a stratum would have to be 

considered sustainable (see the glossary for a definition) for the stratum to be considered 

sustainable.

• All five strata should be sustainable for the whole ESU to be considered sustainable.

In addition to these population-based criteria, the ONCC TRT considered risks to viability that 

operate at the broader ESU level. These risks relate to how populations interact with each other 

to preserve diversity, and how multiple populations might be vulnerable to catastrophic events 

like tsunamis or volcanic eruptions. There are high levels of uncertainty associated with these 

issues, and there are much less data than in other aspects of the biological status of the Oregon 

Coast coho salmon. As a result, there was no way to create specific numeric criteria for these 

ecosystem factors based on observed data. Instead, the ONCC TRT created a formal process 

wherein a panel of experts expressed their best judgment and created an index of ESU-level 

factors that they applied alongside the population analysis to arrive at a final ESU persistence 

and sustainability value (the ESU sustainability score) for Oregon Coast coho salmon. 

Decision Support System for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon

The ONCC TRT developed a knowledge-based Decision Support System (DSS) for the Oregon 

Coast coho salmon ESU (Wainwright et al. 2008). The DSS was designed to evaluate the 

biological sustainability of the entire ESU, where ‘biological sustainability’ implies that “a 

population is able to survive prolonged periods of adverse environmental conditions, while 

maintaining its genetic legacy and long-term adaptive potential” (Wainwright et al. 2014). The 

DSS consists of a suite of biological recovery criteria that contribute to ESU sustainability. The 

biological recovery criteria evaluate two general conditions that imply different levels of risk: 

• Persistence. The persistence analysis evaluates the ability of the ESU to persist over a 

100-year period without artificial support, including the ability to survive prolonged 

periods of adverse environmental conditions. It is based on population productivity, 

probability of persistence, and abundance relative to critically low thresholds (Stout et al. 

2012).

• Sustainability. The sustainability analysis evaluates the ability of the ESU to maintain its 

genetic legacy and long-term adaptive potential for the foreseeable future. The ONCC 

TRT explained that sustainability implies stability of habitat availability and other 

conditions necessary for the full expression of the population’s (or ESU’s) life history 

diversity into the foreseeable future. Criteria used to evaluate population sustainability 

are objective measures of spawner abundance, artificial influence, spawner and juvenile 

distribution, and habitat capacity. They also include ESU-level measures of genetic 

diversity, phenotypic and habitat diversity, and small populations (NWFSC 2015). 

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 4-8

The ONCC TRT integrated the concept of uncertainty into the DSS (see Wainwright et al. 2008 

for a full explanation). For example, if more than half the populations in every stratum meet the 

criteria that would suggest ‘certainty’ that the biological recovery criteria are met. 

The 2008 ONCC TRT document provides a detailed discussion that includes 29 separate 

biological criteria as components of the Decision Support System. In brief, these criteria look at 

watershed- and population-level spawner and juvenile occupancy and distributions, populationspecific productivity, probability of persistence (from population viability models), spawner 

abundance, artificial influence, and ESU-wide genetic and phenotypic diversity (Wainwright et 

al. 2008). NMFS considers this ONCC TRT report describing the DSS, and the NOAA Fisheries

BRT and NWFSC status updates, as the principle components of ‘best available science’ on the 

subject of Oregon Coast coho salmon biological recovery criteria. We used these reports as the 

basis for our delisting criteria, which are described below. The ONCC TRT and BRT documents 

provide full technical discussions on the biological recovery criteria and DSS approach

(Wainwright et al. 2008; Stout et al. 2012; NWFSC 2015; NMFS 2016c). Currently, ongoing 

maintenance and implementation of the DSS is done by ODFW staff. NMFS may update details 

of the biological recovery criteria over time as new information becomes available; however, a 

formal revision to the recovery plan will be required if substantial changes are warranted.

Under the DSS approach, the information collected for the biological criteria is used to evaluate 

six measures of biological status for Oregon Coast coho salmon viability that form the basis of 

our assessment of population, stratum, and ESU health. The six measures are:

1. Spawner abundance, 

2. Spawner distribution,

3. Juvenile distribution,

4. Critical abundance,

5. Population productivity, and

6. Artificial influence. 

 

The results of the assessment of these six measures are then used to develop a series of ‘scores,’

expressed in terms of certainty, that indicate how well the populations, strata, and ESU are doing 

(their biological status) for the abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity

attributes. The biological recovery criteria used to evaluate the status of Oregon Coast coho 

salmon are summarized below. 

Biological Recovery Criterion for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon and Most Recent Status Update

The biological recovery criterion for Oregon Coast coho salmon is that there is at least a 

moderate certainty that the Oregon Coast coho salmon ESU is sustainable. As discussed 

previously, the biological status of the ESU must meet two criteria: (1) most (more than half) of 

the independent populations have to be sustainable in each stratum, and (2) all five strata have to 

be sustainable for the Oregon Coast coho salmon ESU to be considered sustainable (NWFSC 

2015). In future listing decisions, NMFS will determine if this criterion has been met using the 

best available scientific information, including the biological recovery criteria described earlier 

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 4-9

in this section. This information is used to assess the following six key indicators using the 

Decision Support System to determine population, stratum, and ESU health and sustainability. 

The questions presented below for each indicator help explain what the DSS analyzes: 

1. Spawner abundance ─ Are there enough coho salmon in this population/stratum/ESU to 

maintain genetic diversity?

2. Spawner distribution ─ How much of the spawning habitat22F

23 is actually used by the coho 

salmon in the population/stratum/ESU—on average, are there spawning coho salmon in 

most of the available spawning habitat?

3. Juvenile distribution ─ After coho salmon spawn, in what portion of the available habitat 

do we find their offspring in this watershed—are there juvenile coho salmon in most of 

the available rearing habitat?

4. Critical abundance ─ Are there enough salmon spawning in this population/stratum/ESU

when the ocean survival has been low—was spawning density sufficient to avoid small 

population risks?

5. Population productivity ─ Do generations of salmon in this population produce enough 

offspring—is recruitment sustainable—when the ocean survival has been low?

6. Artificial influence ─ What is the proportion of hatchery produced fish spawning in this 

population—are the vast majority of naturally spawning coho salmon of natural (versus 

hatchery-origin coho salmon)? 

4.3 ESA Listing Factors Criteria 

4.3.1 Background: The ESA Listing Factor Criteria

As we discussed previously, section 4(a) (1) of the ESA includes five listing factors:

A. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the species’

habitat or range;

B. Over utilization for commercial, recreational, scientific or educational purposes;

C. Disease or predation;

D. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and

E. Other natural or human-made factors affecting the species’ continued existence.

When NMFS makes determinations to list or delist a species, we evaluate the current status as 

well as the current and future threats for each of these listing factors. Threats, in the context of 

salmon recovery, are understood as the activities or processes that cause the biological and 

physical conditions that limit salmon survival (the limiting factors). 

23 We received a number of comments on the proposed Plan about the importance of assessing all spawning and rearing habitat, 

not just wadable streams. ODFW is currently working to develop habitat monitoring approaches for non-wadable streams. 

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016

 
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 4-10

The specific criteria listed below for each of the factors help to ensure that underlying causes of 

decline have been addressed and mitigated and the Oregon Coast coho salmon ESU is ready for 

delisting. As part of a future listing determination, NMFS will consider the implementation of 

the proposed actions described in the Plan and the extent to which each of the section 4(a)(1) 

listing factors has been addressed. To assist in this examination, NMFS will use criteria 

described below, in addition to the evaluation of biological recovery criteria and other relevant 

data to see if the underlying causes of decline have been addressed and mitigated and are not 

likely to re-emerge in the foreseeable future.

NMFS recognizes that perceived threats, and their significance, can change over time due to 

changes in the natural environment or changes in the way threats affect the entire life cycle of 

salmon. Indeed, this has already happened. As discussed in Chapter 3, some threats perceived as 

significant effects on Oregon Coast coho salmon at the time of listing, such as harvest mortality

and hatchery production, have since been addressed through management adjustments and now 

pose little danger to species viability. Other threats, such as the destruction or modification of 

habitat, continue to affect survival and productivity. In its recent 5-Year Review (NMFS 2016c), 

NMFS determined that Listing Factors A and D were the most important threats to Oregon Coast 

coho salmon. It also recognized that new threats, such as those posed by global climate change,

are emerging. Considering potential climate change scenarios and expected continued 

development, NMFS is concerned that the cumulative effect of all threats will have a continuing 

impact on the status of the Oregon Coast coho salmon ESU and the habitat upon which it 

depends.

4.3.2 Criteria for Assessing the Listing Factors and ESU Status

This section describes goals and criteria for assessing each of the five listing factors. NMFS will 

consider these goals and criteria in determining whether the ESU has recovered to the point that 

it no longer requires the protections of the ESA.

Listing Factor A: The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of 

a species’ habitat or range.

Goal for Listing Factor A: Protect and restore the “physical or biological features that are 

essential for the conservation of the species”2 3F

24 including the primary constituent elements 

described in Section 2.2.5 to the point where the species is no longer threatened or endangered.

Discussion: As the record of our past listing determinations and the discussion in Chapter 3 

describe, Oregon Coast coho salmon have suffered from widespread loss and degradation of 

freshwater habitat. Recognizing that the ESU rebounded from record low viability in the 1990s, 

NMFS will need to determine that the habitat condition is, and will likely continue to be, 

adequate to support a viable ESU before it can remove Oregon Coast coho salmon from the list 

of threatened species. Healthy habitat conditions will be particularly important given the recent 

ocean anomalies and the uncertainty of future ocean and freshwater conditions due to global 

climate change that could lead to periods of unprecedented low survival. As described in the 

2011 listing determination: “the BRT’s analysis of freshwater habitat trends for the Oregon coast 

found little evidence for an overall improving trend in freshwater habitat conditions since the 

24 From the definition of critical habitat in Section 3 of the ESA.

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016

 
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 4-11

mid-1990s, and evidence of negative trends in some strata.” The most recent assessment of the 

ESU (NWFSC 2015) indicates that this has not changed. 

Figure 4-2 illustrates the relationships between ocean survival, freshwater habitat status, and 

ESU viability and recovery. The figure is adapted from a scientific journal article, written in 

199324F

25 by Dr. Peter Lawson, then with ODFW and now with NOAA’s NWFSC. Lawson’s

article provides an important message about the need to maintain healthy freshwater habitat 

conditions to safeguard Oregon Coast coho salmon long-term sustainability during periods of 

unfavorable ocean conditions. The need for this caution has not diminished in light of more 

recent scientific findings and information. 

Figure 4-2. Relationship between ocean survival, freshwater habitat status, and Oregon Coast coho salmon ESU viability 

and recovery. Adapted From Lawson 1993.

NMFS recognizes the need to “balance the Plan’s significant reliance on regulatory mechanisms 

with the flexibility to implement a combination of regulatory, programmatic, and voluntary 

approaches to achieve desired recovery outcomes...” (Oregon, 2015). The 2007 OCCCP 

explains “The state has determined that the best way to increase the quantity and quality of coho 

habitat throughout the ESU, and achieve desired status, is through the voluntary participation of 

landowners and local groups.”

25 Lawson 1993

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016

 
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 4-12

NMFS supports an overarching recovery strategy that emphasizes certain, effective voluntary 

approaches to habitat protection and restoration and Oregon Coast coho salmon recovery. To be 

effective, these need to be consistent with the best available scientific (geomorphic) information 

relating to high quality coho salmon habitat and avoid projects that are not likely to be effective.

NMFS also recognizes that recovered habitats need to be protected from future degradation. 

Consequently, both voluntary and regulatory approaches are needed to meet the criteria in 

Listing Factors A and D. For purposes of ESA recovery and delisting (in particular, compatibility 

with Listing Factor D), NMFS will assess the adequacy of the combination of voluntary 

measures and ‘regulatory backstops’ that are in place to ensure that the desired outcomes will be 

achieved, as described below. 

Listing Factor A Criteria: 

The criteria for Listing Factor A are that the past and present habitat loss and degradation have

been addressed so as to not limit attainment of the desired status of the ESU, and that there is 

evidence that key watershed processes and habitat features (as described in Section 3.3.1) and 

water quality will be stable or improving. 

Section 3.3.1 describes how natural processes created high quality rearing habitat for coho and 

how monitoring programs have shown that human activities have reduced the quantity and 

quality of that habitat. Chapter 9 includes recommendations to continue and expand the 

monitoring programs.

NMFS will consider the best available and measurable information to determine if the criteria for 

Listing Factor A has been met.

1. NMFS will assess the condition of Oregon Coast coho salmon habitat.

a. Results of habitat monitoring

NMFS will use the best available quantitative information about Oregon Coast coho 

salmon habitat condition, including limiting factors and trends, to determine progress 

toward ESU recovery. This will include information from ODFW, such as the Oregon 

Aquatic Inventories Project and other sources. NMFS will also support the 

development and application of information from emerging methods and 

technologies. For example, we are encouraged by the promising developments in the 

use of remote sensing and other approaches that could provide a cost-effective way to

inventory key habitat features and track the net change of these features over time.

Chapter 9 includes additional information about how NMFS places a very high 

priority on development and application of this capability in terms of assessing 

progress towards recovery of Oregon Coast coho salmon.

Salmon rely on adequate quantities of cold water for their continued existence, and 

increasing stream complexity in coastal rivers would contribute to both Oregon Coast 

coho salmon habitat and to achieving Oregon’s water quality standards under the 

Federal Clean Water Act. NMFS will work with EPA, ODEQ, ODFW, ODF, Oregon 

Department of Agriculture (ODA), and others to assess the effect of water conditions 

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 4-13

on salmon recovery, including progress towards assuring adequate water quality and 

quantity on the coast, with particular attention to protecting cold water.

NMFS recognizes that considerable work has been done and is ongoing by state, 

local, and federal agencies and the private sector towards meeting water quality goals. 

We also recognize that this work will evolve over time as new information is obtained 

and the entire effort is ‘adaptively managed.’ NMFS will consider the best available 

information about water quality and quantity conditions and related voluntary efforts 

and regulatory mechanisms, relying on the indicators (metrics) that can provide the

most useful assessment. 

NMFS could, for example, consider the following:

• Oregon Water Resources Department (and local jurisdiction) regulation of 

water extraction from surface and groundwater sources that may influence 

habitat quantity and quality.

• The Clean Water Act Section 303(d) listings of water bodies within the range 

of Oregon Coast coho salmon.

• Progress in moving waterbodies from category (waterbody is water quality 

limited and a TMDL is needed,) to 4a (TMDL issued but waterbody not yet 

attaining water quality standard(s)) to 2 (specific water quality standards are 

met).25F

26

• Progress in meeting requirements of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization 

Amendments (CZARA).

• Progress towards meeting specific allocations or targets in TMDLs or other 

water pollution control plans (numeric if available) including those for 

effective shade, instream flow, channel morphology, cold-water refugia, and 

other relevant indicators that address impairments affecting aquatic life.

• The adequacy of state, county, and city land use and development regulations 

that protect coho salmon habitat, especially riparian areas and floodplain 

connectivity.

b. Information about the resilience of Oregon Coast coho salmon in response to low 

ocean survival

As one indication of the adequacy of freshwater and estuarine habitat, NMFS will 

consider available evidence relating to the resilience of the Oregon Coast coho 

salmon ESU. For example, we will carefully assess the scores for population 

productivity critical abundance within the DSS (Wainwright et al. 2008).

2. NMFS will evaluate evidence of the abatement of habitat-related threats.

26 (category 3 is when there is insufficient data)

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016

 
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 4-14

In Chapter 3, we described the threats that led to listing Oregon Coast coho salmon as 

threatened under the ESA. As stated above, the criteria for Listing Factor A include the 

reduction or removal of threats such that they do not limit attainment of the desired status 

of the ESU. 

In future listing determinations, NMFS will examine available evidence that the 

combination of voluntary and regulatory measures has reduced or eliminated threats to 

the extent that there is adequate quantity and quality of key habitat features in key 

portions of the watersheds for independent populations. 

Our analyses of the abatement of threats from voluntary and regulatory measures will be 

informed by the extent to which management actions and protective (conservation) 

efforts have been implemented and are effective. We expect to use the ‘Policy for 

Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When Making Listing Decisions’ (PECE) criteria as a 

tool in assessing the extent to which habitat-related limiting factors and threats have been 

reduced or eliminated. The PECE criteria will serve as a check list to examine (1) the 

certainty that the conservation efforts will be implemented and (2) the certainty that the 

efforts will be effective in achieving the criteria for Listing Factor A and the habitat 

portion of Listing Factor D. 

Listing Factor B: Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational

purposes 

Goal for Listing Factor B: Ensure commercial and recreational fishing activities are not

impeding the recovery of Oregon Coast coho salmon.

Discussion: The BRT (Stout et al. 2012) found that harvest-related mortalities have been reduced 

substantially since harvest was curtailed in 1994 and that current harvest management under 

Amendment 13 has succeeded in maintaining a higher spawner abundance during downward 

trends in productivity of the stocks. The BRT determined that further harvest reductions would 

have little effect on spawning escapements (Stout et al. 2012). The NWFSC 2015 status review 

update also found that harvest rates on Oregon Coast coho salmon have remained low (below 

20%) since 1993.

ODFW reported that for the 2015 return, the harvest rate on Oregon Coast coho salmon was 20

percent and the total number of native spawners was 57,106 (ODFW 2016). These statistics 

warrant a caution about the implementation of Amendment 13, since the harvest rate in 2015 was 

the highest rate since 1993 in a year when the total number of native spawners was the lowest 

since 1999. Chapters 6 and 9 offer recommendations relating to harvest management in the 

future. 

Listing Factor B Criterion:

To meet the goal for Listing Factor B, harvest practices will need to ensure they are consistent 

with the recovery of Oregon Coast coho salmon, meaning the fishery impact rates in the future 

should not be higher than specified in the Amendment 13 harvest matrix (as updated). 

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 4-15

Listing Factor C: Disease or predation

Goal for Listing Factor C: Ensure that diseases and predation and their effects on 

reproduction and survival are not a threat to the sustainability of the Oregon Coast coho salmon 

ESU.

Discussion: ODFW26 F

27 and NMFS (Wainwright et al. 2008 and Stout et al. 2012) identified 

predation by birds, marine mammals, and non-native species of fish as concerns. In particular, 

warm-water fish species introduced to the lakes were identified as primary limiting factors for 

the Siltcoos, Tahkenitch, and Tenmile lake populations. NMFS recognizes that there is some 

disagreement among fisheries scientists as to the degree of risk posed to coho salmon 

populations by warm-water fish species. 

Listing Factor C Criteria:

NMFS will consider the goal for Listing Factor C to be met if there is evidence of the following 

(based in part on Crawford and Rumsey 2011):

• Predation by birds, non-native fish species, and marine mammals is managed in a way 

that allows for recovery of the Oregon Coast coho salmon ESU. NMFS recognizes the 

challenges associated with managing the predation of one federally protected species 

(Oregon Coast coho salmon) by other federally protected species (migratory birds and 

marine mammals). 

• Disease and pathogens do not impede recovery of the Oregon Coast coho salmon ESU.

Listing Factor D: The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms

Goal for Listing Factor D: Regulatory mechanisms have been established, maintained, and 

implemented in ways that supports the recovery of the Oregon Coast coho salmon ESU. 

Discussion: For Oregon Coast coho salmon, Listing Factor D pertains to multiple categories of 

regulatory mechanisms including habitat, harvest, predation, disease, hatcheries, and other 

factors.

NMFS’ general approach recognizes that the state of Oregon and many stakeholders find that 

including voluntary approaches to achieving ESA recovery is more cost-effective than relying on 

a regulatory approach. A combination of voluntary and regulatory approaches is key to achieving 

recovery goals. However, in order to address ESA Listing Factor D, NMFS needs assurance that 

voluntary programs are ‘backed up’ by regulatory mechanisms that ensure that the Oregon Coast

coho salmon ESU is not threatened or endangered, nor will it become so, because of the present 

or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range. NMFS therefore

accepts the concept of a ‘regulatory backstop.’ This means we support the goal of achieving 

recovery with a strong voluntary effort, but we will look for evidence that regulatory 

mechanisms are in place to protect Oregon Coast coho salmon now and in the future. 

27 OCCCP: Predation as a Limiting Factor, page 26

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016

 
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 4-16

Goal for Factor D related to Listing Factor A (destruction of habitat): The goal is that voluntary 

programs will be effective in achieving goals, but regulatory mechanisms are in place that 

complement voluntary actions and contribute to protecting and restoring Oregon Coast coho 

salmon such that the ESU is not threatened or endangered, nor will it become so, because of the 

present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range.

Criteria:

To meet the goal for Listing Factor D related to Listing Factor A, a combination of voluntary and 

regulatory mechanisms should be in place that:

• are effective in ensuring that voluntary and regulatory conservation efforts will be 

implemented and that the efforts will be effective in attaining habitat-related goals. The 

criteria included in the Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts (PECE) provides a 

useful checklist for NMFS to evaluate the overall effectiveness of the voluntary and 

regulatory programs;27F

28

• improve protections for floodplain and other rearing habitats, such as implementing the 

NMFS Biological Opinion on the National Flood Insurance Program, to limit future 

loss of floodplain habitat in jurisdictions enrolled in that program, and other 

mechanisms for areas not enrolled;

• change beaver management to allow beavers to build more dams in Oregon Coast coho 

rearing habitat;

• change agricultural and rural land management and practices to encourage restoration 

of riparian vegetation and floodplain and habitat complexity (e.g., connected side 

channels and wetlands) that will improve water quality as well as coho salmon habitat; 

• change forest management (especially in privately owned forests but also in stateowned forests) to increase the natural recruitment of large wood into streams, provide 

more shade to counter increasing temperatures, and reduce transport of fine sediment 

into waterbodies during storms;

• protect riparian areas and floodplains in rural residential areas through effective state, 

county, and city land use and development regulations; and

• improve protection of surface and ground water sources through water regulation (by 

state and local agencies) of water extractions that may influence habitat quantity and 

quality.

Goal for Factor D related to Listing Factor B (overutilization): Regulatory mechanisms continue 

to ensure that Oregon Coast coho salmon will not be a threatened or endangered species because 

of marine and freshwater harvest.

28 60FR15100 March 28, 2003

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016

 
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 4-17

Criterion:

In order to meet the goal for Listing Factor D related to Listing Factor B, harvest management 

(through the Pacific Fishery Management Council or other regulatory mechanism) should ensure 

that the goals for Listing Factor B are reached.

Goal for Factor D related to Listing Factor C (disease and predation): Regulatory mechanisms 

(including federal protections of birds and pinnipeds) ensure that Oregon Coast coho salmon will 

not be a threatened or endangered species because of disease and predation. 

Criterion:

In order to meet the goal for Listing Factor D related to Listing Factor B, monitoring and 

regulatory mechanisms should be in place that ensure that the goals for Listing Factor C are 

reached.

Goal for Factor D related to Listing Factor E (other man-made or natural factors): Regulatory 

mechanisms are in place that ensure that Oregon Coast coho salmon will not be a threatened or 

endangered species because of conditions described in Listing Factor E. 

Criterion:

In order to meet the goal for Listing Factor D related to Listing Factor E, hatchery management 

(through ODFW and NMFS section 7 regulatory mechanism) should ensure that the goals for 

Listing Factor E relating to hatcheries are reached.

Listing Factor E: Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence

Goal 1 for Listing Factor E: Ensure hatchery activities are not impeding the recovery of 

Oregon Coast coho salmon.

Discussion: The ONCC TRT, BRT, and NWFSC have concluded that ODFW has implemented 

reductions and reforms in hatchery operations that effectively reduced hatcheries as a threat to 

recovery. ODFW has submitted Hatchery Genetic Management Plans (HGMP) to NMFS for 

every hatchery program in the Oregon Coast coho salmon ESU for approval under the ESA limit 

5 of the 4(d) rule. 

Criterion:

To meet this goal, hatchery practices will need to remain consistent with the recovery of Oregon 

Coast coho salmon. Implementation of the hatchery program according to a NMFS approved 

HGMP will achieve this criterion. NMFS will continue to work with ODFW to adaptively 

manage hatchery production to ensure hatchery risks are appropriate for the conservation and 

recovery of the ESU. 

Goal 2 for Listing Factor E: Evaluate Threats Due To Other Causes.

As resources allow, NMFS will work with partners to support a continuation of monitoring

programs in an effort to detect significant changes in Oregon Coast coho salmon habitat due to 

multiple factors, including climate change (by monitoring changes in stream flow, temperature, 

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 4-18

and their effects upon freshwater survival at all life stages). This is consistent with the ESA 

section 4 (g) which states in part: 

“(1) The Secretary shall implement a system in cooperation with the States to monitor 

effectively for not less than five years the status of all species which have recovered to 

the point at which the measures provided pursuant to this Act are no longer necessary and 

which, in accordance with the provisions of this section, have been removed from either 

of the lists published under subsection (c).

(2) The Secretary shall make prompt use of the authority under paragraph 7 of subsection 

(b) of this section to prevent a significant risk to the well-being of any such recovered 

species.”

4.4 Making a Listing Determination Considering the Biological Status 

and the Five Listing Factors

At the time of a delisting decision for the Oregon Coast coho salmon ESU, NMFS will examine 

whether each of the section 4(a)(1) listing factors have been addressed. To assist in this 

examination, NMFS will use the delisting framework described below and shown in Figure 4-1, 

in addition to evaluating the biological status relative to the recovery criteria and other relevant 

data and policy considerations. The threats need to have been addressed to the point that delisting 

is not likely to result in their re-emergence. 

4.4.1 Biological Status and Threats Review

NMFS recognizes that perceived threats, and their significance, can change over time due to 

changes in the natural environment or changes in the way threats affect the entire life cycle of 

salmon. Indeed, this has already happened. As discussed earlier, some threats to Oregon Coast 

coho salmon at the time of listing, such as harvest mortality and hatchery influence, have since 

been reduced through management adjustments and now pose less danger to species viability. 

Other threats, such as the condition of freshwater and estuarine habitats, continue to limit 

recovery progress, although conditions in some areas are improving through the work of 

volunteers and stakeholders (See Chapter 7 for a discussion of past and protected expenditures to 

protect and restore habitat). At the same time, new threats, such as those posed by climate 

change, may be emerging. During its five-year reviews, NMFS will review the biological status 

and listing factor criteria.

The recent improvements in the biological status of Oregon Coast coho salmon have led to 

renewed interest in delisting the species, highlighting the importance of articulating, as clearly as 

possible, how we will make future listing/delisting decisions. 

As described in this chapter and portrayed in Figure 4-1, the delisting framework for Oregon 

Coast coho salmon combines our assessment of biological status, the five listing factors, 

recovery actions, and research, monitoring and evaluation. The combined results from these 

assessments provide NMFS with the information needed to fully assess the overall risk to the 

species in future listing determinations. 

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 4-19

4.4.2 Applying the Delisting Framework for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon

NMFS plans to apply the delisting framework approach portrayed in Figure 4-1 in making future 

decisions regarding the overall risk of extinction of Oregon Coast coho salmon. The challenges 

of applying this framework are underscored by the fact that we need to take into account the

factors that have contributed to the threatened status and:

• the concept of trade-offs28 F

29 between the various objectives and criteria and efforts;

• the ONCC TRT’s description of the Oregon Coast coho salmon ESU as a complex 

structure with important processes operating at scales ranging from individual spawning 

grounds to the entire Oregon Coast coho salmon ESU;

• the threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat;29F

30

• the uncertainties described in our listing determinations and ONCC TRT and BRT 

reports; and

• the reality is that there are multiple combinations of strategies and actions that could meet 

the biological criteria and listing factors, and protective efforts, and there is no single,

pre-established, approach to progress from threatened to recovered status for Oregon 

Coast coho salmon.

The following tables show that we will consider the status of the biological health of the ESU 

and the status of the five listing factors, and assess the certainty that the goals and criteria have 

been met.

• Table 4-1 presents the components of the listing determination framework in a manner 

that allows us to indicate the certainty we have that the biological and listing factor 

criteria have been met.

• Table 4-2 shows how the factors contributed to our threatened status determination in 

2011. 

• Table 4-3 describes the strongest case for delisting—if we had ‘complete certainty’ that 

the biological and all the listing factors met their respective objectives and criteria.

• Table 4-4 shows a hypothetical characterization of how we might delist even if one 

criterion was not met, because the ESA and NMFS guidance do not require the highest 

level of certainty that all criteria have been met, nor do they specify exactly what the 

status of the species and the listing factors must be in order to delist.

• Table 4-5 illustrates the concept of trade-offs—how we could delist with different 

combinations of certainty that biological and listing factor criteria had been met.

29 NMFS Recovery Guidance 2007. 30 ESA Section 4(a)(1)(A)

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016

 
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 4-20

Table 4-1. Framework for considering the biological and listing factors for Oregon Coast coho salmon.

31 Based on the score for ESU sustainability (ES) from the Decision Support System (DSS) presented in Wainwright et al. 2008. 32 Does NMFS consider overutilization to be a threat to recovery? 33 Does NMFS consider disease & predation to be a threat to recovery? 34 Does NMFS consider other factors to be a threat to recovery, including hatcheries and climate change?

Degree of certainty that 

criterion has been met

Biological

Status

(Is the ESU 

sustainable?)30F

31

Listing Factor (LF) A

Is the habitat adequate 

for recovery?

LF B31F

32 LF C32F33

Listing Factor D

The regulatory mechanisms for each listing factor (A,B,C,

and E) are adequate to achieve and sustain recovery

LF E

Other

factors33F

34 A B C E

High certainty it is met

Moderate certainty it is 

met

Low Certainty it is met

Uncertain

Low Certainty it is not 

met

Moderate certainty it is 

not met

High certainty it is not 

met

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016

 
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 4-21

Table 4-2. Characterization of how we evaluated the criteria leading to a ‘moderate risk of extinction’ and threatened status determination in 2011.

Degree of certainty 

that criterion has been 

met

Biological

Status (DSS results):

Low to moderate 

certainty the ESU 

was sustainable34F

35

Listing Factor (LF) 

A35F

36 LF B36F

37 LF C37F

38

Listing Factor D

Habitat regulatory mechanisms were inadequate to 

achieve and sustain recovery38F

39

LF E

Other 

factors39F

40

A B C E

High certainty it is met

Moderate certainty it is 

met

Low Certainty it is met

Uncertain

Low Certainty it is not 

met

Moderate certainty it is 

not met

Regulatory 

mechanisms 

for habitat

High certainty it is not 

met

35 Low to moderate certainty the ESU is sustainable based on the BRT scores for ESU sustainability (ES) (+0.24 and +0/28) in Stout et al. 2012. 36 NMFS was uncertain about the adequacy of the habitat based on ONCC TRT, BRT, Habitat Consultation Division and 5 year status review analyses. 37 NMFS did not consider overutilization to be a threat to recovery (BRT). 38 NMFS did not consider disease & predation to be a threat to recovery except predation in the Lakes Stratum. 39 NMFS considered the inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms to be an impediment to recovery - see the Listing FRN June, 2011; BRT, ONCC TRT and other sources. 40 Other factors: Green indicates NMFS did not consider hatcheries to be a threat to recovery; yellow indicates we are concerned but uncertain about climate change (BRT).

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016

 
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 4-22

Table 4-3. The strongest case for delisting would be if we had ‘complete certainty’ that the biological status and all the listing factors met their respective goals 

and protective efforts were effective.

Degree of certainty that 

criterion has been met

Biological Status –

DSS shows the ESU is 

sustainable and 

persistent

Listing Factor (LF) A LF B LF C

Listing Factor D: habitat regulatory mechanisms have been 

strengthened and are consistent with sustained recovery LF E

Other factors

A B C E

High certainty it is met

Moderate certainty it is 

met

Low Certainty it is met

Uncertain

Low Certainty it is not 

met

Moderate certainty it is 

not met

High certainty it is not 

met

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 4-23

Table 4-4. Hypothetical characterization of how NMFS might delist. In this hypothetical scenario, NMFS could determine that even though we aren’t certain that 

the habitat is adequate for recovery, the biological status is good and newly strengthened regulatory mechanisms are deemed sufficient to improve the habitat 

enough to warrant delisting.

Degree of certainty that 

criterion has been met

Biological Status:

DSS shows moderate 

certainty that the ESU 

is sustainable and 

persistent

Listing Factor (LF) A 

Uncertain about 

adequacy of the 

habitat

B & C

Do not impede recovery 

Listing Factor D:

habitat regulatory mechanisms are adequate to achieve and 

sustain recovery

LF E

Other factors 

do not 

impede

High certainty it is met

Moderate certainty it is 

met

Low Certainty it is met

Uncertain

Low Certainty it is not 

met

Moderate certainty it is 

not met

High certainty it is not 

met

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 4-24

Table 4-5. Hypothetical characterization of combinations of how NMFS could delist. If we determined there was a high certainty that the habitat and regulatory 

mechanisms were adequate to sustain recovery, we could consider delisting with a lower score for biological sustainability. 

Degree of certainty that 

criterion has been met

Biological

Status

We might not need 

high certainty the ESU 

is sustainable if listing 

factors are in good 

shape.

Listing Factor (LF) A

Certain the habitat is 

adequate for recovery

Certain B & C criteria are met Certain that Listing Factor D - habitat regulatory 

mechanisms - are adequate to achieve and sustain 

recovery

LF E

Other factors

are 

consistent 

with 

recovery

High certainty it is met

Moderate certainty it is 

met

Low Certainty it is met

Uncertain

Low Certainty it is not 

met

Moderate certainty it is 

not met

High certainty it is not 

met

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 5-1

5. Current Status Relative to Recovery Goals 

This chapter discusses the current status of the Oregon Coast coho salmon ESU relative to the 

recovery goals, including the difference, or gap, between the current status of the ESU relative to 

achieving the recovery goals and meeting the delisting criteria. This reflects recent findings by 

the Northwest Fisheries Science Center in its 2015 Status Review Update for Pacific Salmon and 

Steelhead Listed under the Endangered Species Act: Pacific Northwest (NWFSC 2015), the 

findings from NMFS’s Biological Review Team 2012 status review (Stout et al. 2012), and 

NMFS’ 5-Year Review: Summary & Evaluation of Oregon Coast Coho Salmon (NMFS 2016c). 

The good and bad news:

• In 2014, the total number of native spawners reached a 60-year high, with nearly 360,000 

native coho salmon spawners returning to the Oregon coast (ODFW 2016). However, the 

total number of native spawners dropped from nearly 360,000 to about 57,000 in 2015.

(The primary reason was probably poor ocean survival and possibly freshwater 

conditions - e.g., floods). This underscores the BRT’s concerns about the potential for the 

ESU to decline quickly when poor conditions return.

• Restoration efforts have continued to restore habitat condition for Oregon Coast coho 

salmon; NMFS continues to support these local and statewide efforts (see the Chapter 3).

• Harvest managers continue to manage Oregon Coast coho salmon harvest in a manner 

that is greatly improved over previous approaches. 

• ODFW hatchery policies and practices continue to be consistent with recovery.

• ODFW continues to implement one of the best salmon habitat monitoring efforts on the 

West Coast that provides valuable information relative to delisting (at the stratum level),

and new emerging approaches for tracking the net change in habitat feature show

promise. In spite of this excellent habitat monitoring program, there are important data 

gaps and uncertainties regarding details of habitat status, especially at the population 

scale. Additional information is needed about the net change in key habitat features (e.g.,

elements of habitat complexity), where and how to most effectively protect and restore 

coho salmon habitat, and in what sequence. Continued funding is a major concern and 

ongoing research, monitoring and evaluation, with adaptively managed strategies, will be 

important for long-term conservation of Oregon Coast coho salmon. 

• ODFW supports delisting of Oregon Coast coho salmon, but acknowledges that 

continued efforts through restoration and management are vital to achieving a desired 

status that provides substantial ecological and societal benefits.

• ODA has initiated a strategic initiative of focus areas and Strategic Implementation Areas 

(SIAs) to document landscape conditions and improvements on agricultural lands 

necessary to achieve state water quality standards; if these few, small pilots can be 

expanded and supported, they have the potential to contribute significantly to recovery.

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 5-2

• In November 2015, the Oregon Board of Forestry voted to increase stream buffer 

protections on small and medium-sized streams where coho and other salmon are present 

to counter the effect of increasing stream temperatures, specifically the Protecting Cold 

Water criterion, following certain types of forest harvest (Oregon 2016). However, it 

remains to be seen if the voluntary measures and changes in regulatory mechanisms 

(including the Board of Forestry rulemaking) will result in progress towards meeting 

Oregon Coast coho salmon habitat and water quality goals, particularly temperature and 

sediment. These include forest practices (the Oregon Department of Forestry has not yet 

implemented the Board of Forestry’s rule changes and indications are that this will only 

be successful in meeting water quality standards 50% of the time), agricultural practices 

(ODA’s Strategic Implementation Area and Focus Area initiatives are as of yet limited in 

number and area covered and have not yet been tested for effectiveness, beaver removal, 

and floodplain protections. NMFS recognizes that it will take time for changes to be 

implemented and show habitat improvement. We described in Chapter 4 that we will 

assess the effectiveness of measures in the context of all recovery criteria.

5.1 Current Status of Oregon Coast Coho Salmon ESU

This section describes the current status of the Oregon Coast coho salmon ESU based on status 

reviews conducted by NMFS’ biological review teams in 2015 (NWFSC 2015) and 2012 (Stout 

et al. 2012). It also discusses findings from NMFS’ 2016 5-Year Review: Summary and 

Evaluation of Oregon Coast Coho Salmon. 

5.1.1 Northwest Fisheries Science Center Findings from 2015 Status Review

In 2015, the Northwest Fisheries Science Center reviewed the biological status of the Oregon 

Coast coho salmon ESU as part of its larger status review for Pacific Northwest salmon and 

steelhead listed under the ESA. The results of this NWFSC 2015 review are based in part on the 

most recent DSS evaluation conducted by ODFW (Lewis 2015) using data through the species’ 

2014 return year. The NWFSC 2015 findings are summarized here and described in detail in the 

full report: Status Review Update for Pacific Salmon and Steelhead Listed under the Endangered 

Species Action: Pacific Northwest (NWFSC 2015).

Abundance and Productivity

Findings by the NWFSC (2015) and ODFW (2016) show many positive improvements to 

Oregon Coast coho salmon in recent years, including positive long-term abundance trends and 

escapement. Results from the NWFSC recent review show that while Oregon Coast coho salmon 

spawner abundance varies by time and population, the total abundance of spawners within the 

ESU has been generally increasing since 1999, with total abundance exceeding 280,000 

spawners in three of the last five years (NWFSC 2015).

Most independent populations in the ESU showed an overall increasing trend in abundance with 

synchronously high abundances in 2002-2003, 2009-2011, and 2014, and low abundances in 

2007, 2009, and 2015 (Figure 5-1). This synchrony suggests the overriding importance of marine 

survival to recruitment and escapement of Oregon Coast coho salmon (NWFSC 2015).

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 5-3

The most recent information (ODFW 2016) indicates that the ‘estimated total population’ in 

2014 of approximately 420,000 spawners was the highest since at least the 1950s (2011 was the 

2nd highest with 378,000 spawners. However, the 2015 return apparently suffered from severe, 

unprecedented ocean conditions (see Section 3.3.5) and the total population was only 71,000, 

with the number of native spawners down to approximately 57,000, the lowest number since 

1999. This underscores the considerable uncertainty in predicting the effects of climate change 

on the globe as a whole, and on Oregon Coast coho salmon and their freshwater, marine, and 

estuarine habitat in particular. This underscores the importance to recovery of the key factor that 

we have the most control over at this point—rearing habitat. 

Figure 5-1. Estimated abundance of native spawners by strata for Oregon Coast coho salmon, 1995-2015 (NWFSC 2015).

Spatial Structure and Diversity

The NWFSC inferred the spatial structure of coho salmon populations within the Oregon Coast 

ESU using population-specific spawner abundance and productivity. The review indicates that 

there is no geographic area or stratum within the ESU that appears to have considerably lower 

abundance or be less productive than other areas (NWFSC 2015).

The NWFSC determined that wild coho salmon diversity within the ESU is not likely a 

hindrance to ESU sustainability. While the 2008 biological review team status review concluded 

that there was low certainty that ESU-level genetic diversity was sufficient for long-term 

sustainability in the ESU (Wainwright et al. 2008), the recent NWFSC review suggests this is an 

unlikely outcome. This change reflects a move by the state of Oregon in the 1990s to greatly 

reduce the production of hatchery coho salmon along the coast, thus reducing hatchery influence 

in wild Oregon Coast coho salmon populations. As a result, all but one independent population 

in the Oregon Coast coho salmon ESU currently have a five-year average of more than 98 

percent wild spawners (NWFSC 2015). The observed upward trends in abundance and 

productivity and downward trends in hatchery influence make decreases in genetic or life history 

diversity or loss of dependent populations in recent years unlikely (NWFSC 2015). 

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 5-4

Decision Support System Evaluation Summary of Current Biological Status

The Decision Support System for Oregon Coast coho salmon was specifically developed to 

evaluate biological recovery criteria for the entire ESU at two levels, persistence (EP) and 

sustainability (ES), which imply different levels of risk (Wainwright et al. 2008). As discussed in 

Chapter 4, the persistence analysis evaluates the ability of the ESU to persist over a 100-year 

period without artificial support, including the ability to survive prolonged periods of adverse 

environmental conditions. The sustainability analysis evaluates the ability of the ESU to 

maintain its genetic legacy and long- term adaptive potential for the foreseeable future based on 

habitat availability and other conditions necessary for the full expression of the population’s (or 

ESU’s) life history diversity. Criteria used to evaluate population sustainability are objective 

measures of spawner abundance, artificial influence, spawner and juvenile distributions, and 

habitat capacity. The DSS also includes ESU-level measures of genetic diversity, phenotypic and 

habitat diversity, and small populations.

The most recent overall scores from the DSS (using data through return year 2014) show 

improvement over previous iterations for both ESU persistence and sustainability. The most 

recent EP value is 0.73 (high certainty the ESU is likely to persist), compared to values of 0.44 

for the 2012 assessment (moderate to high certainty the ESU is likely to persist). For ESU 

sustainability, the current value is 0.29 (moderate certainty the ESU is sustainable), which is also 

higher than values resulting from previous assessments (0.23, or low to moderate certainty the 

ESU is sustainable). The scores for the five strata reflected moderate or high levels of certainty 

that the strata were sustainable. The only populations that did not pass the sustainability criteria 

were the Necanicum, Salmon, Sixes, and North Umpqua (NWFSC 2015 based on Lewis 2015).

These low scores could be one consideration for prioritizing recovery efforts, but the recovery 

criteria described in Chapter 4 are at the strata scale, so it is not a requirement that the scores for 

these populations be raised in order to meet the biological recovery criteria. 

Based on this review, the NWFSC determined that while the current DSS scores show that there 

is moderate certainty the ESU is sustainable, there remain concerns for listing factors related to 

habitat and regulatory mechanisms (NWFSC 2015).

5.1.2 Summary of Current Status

Overall, the NWFSC (2015) found that increases in Oregon Coast coho salmon ESU scores for 

persistence and sustainability clearly indicate that the biological status of the ESU is improving, 

due in large part to management decisions (reduced harvest and hatchery releases). It 

determined, however, that Oregon Coast coho salmon abundance remains strongly correlated 

with marine survival rates. The NWFSC determined that the following statement from the 

biological review team’s 2012 status review (Stout et al. 2012) of Oregon Coast coho salmon 

was worth repeating:

“The BRT was particularly concerned that the long-term loss of high value rearing 

habitat has increased the vulnerability of the ESU to near-term and long-term climate 

effects. In the short term, the ESU could rapidly decline to the low abundance seen in the 

mid-1990s when ocean conditions cycled back to a period of poor survival for coho 

salmon.” 

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 5-5

The NWFSC (2015) warned that, as Lawson (1993) stated over two decades ago, “The true 

measure of success for such [stream restoration] projects is the continued survival of the 

population through subsequent episodes of low abundance” (Lawson 1993, p. 6), when 

discussing cycles in ocean productivity, habitat restoration, and the productivity of Oregon Coast 

coho salmon. Lawson (1993) cautioned that variation in ocean productivity can mask the true 

benefits of stream restoration projects; increased abundances are incorrectly attributed to stream 

restoration when the increases resulted from high marine survival. Consequently, it is only when 

marine survival is low that it becomes apparent whether habitat quality and quantity are 

sufficient to support self-sustaining populations. The NWFSC determined that with marine 

survival rates expected to decrease for Oregon Coast coho salmon entering the ocean in 2014 

(Peterson et al. 2014), 2015 and 2016, it would be advisable to wait to observe how the 

populations fare during this potential downturn before deciding to change their status. It 

concluded that the updated information did not indicate a change in the biological risk category 

for the Oregon Coast coho salmon ESU since the time of the previous biological review team 

(Stout et al. 2012) review (NWFSC 2015). 

Figures 5-2 and 5-3 illustrate the approximate status and trends (if known) of the four VSP 

parameters and the five listing factors at two times: the first shows what led to listing Oregon 

Coast coho salmon as threatened, the second shows the status as reported by NMFS in the 2016 

5-Year Review (NMFS 2016c). These figures are not intended to be quantitative estimates but 

indications of the improvements in viability criteria and several listing factors since listing.

Viability at the time of listing

Abundance Productivity Spatial Structure Diversity

ESA 4(a)(1) Listing Factors at the time of listing

Habitat Overutilization Disease/Predation Inadequacy of 

Regulatory 

Mechanisms

Other Natural or 

Manmade Factors

Figure 5-2. Status and trends of Viable Salmonid Population parameters and listing factors for Oregon Coast coho salmon 

at the time of listing (NMFS 2016c). 

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 5-6

Status and Recent Trends

Viability in 2015

Abundance Productivity Spatial Structure Diversity

ESA 4(a)(1) Listing Factors in 2015

Habitat Overutilization Disease/Predation Inadequacy of 

Regulatory 

Mechanisms

Other Natural or 

Manmade Factors

Figure 5-3. Status and trends of Viable Salmonid Population parameters and listing factors for Oregon Coast coho salmon 

at the time of 2016 five-year status review (NMFS 2016c). 

Table 5-1 provides a characterization of our current assessment of the biological status and 

listing factors, and the gap between current and desired conditions. The table shows that we are 

not yet reasonably certain that the habitat and habitat-related regulatory mechanisms are 

adequate to meet the criteria and goals described in Chapter 4.

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 5-7

Table 5-1. Characterization of the current assessment of the biological status and elements of the delisting criteria incorporating the 2016 5-Year Status Review 

(NWFSC 2015 and NMFS 2016c). 

Degree of certainty that 

criterion has been met

Biological

Status Listing Factor (LF) A LF 

B

LF 

C40F

41 Listing Factor D

LF E

Other 

factors41F

A B C E 42

High certainty it is met

Moderate certainty it is met

Moderate Certainty that 

the ESU is sustainable

Low Certainty it is met

Uncertain

Low Certainty it is not met

Concern about net 

change of habitat 

status

Moderate certainty it is not 

met

Concern that regulatory 

mechanisms for land use 

are not adequate

High certainty it is not met

41 Concern about predation in some areas of the ESU. 42 Green reflects hatchery status; yellow reflects concern about the potential effects of climate change on both freshwater and marine survival.

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016

 
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 5-8

5.2 Closing the Gap between ESU Current Status and Recovery

As discussed in Section 5.1, the updated status review completed by NMFS’ Northwest Fisheries 

Science Center indicates that the biological status of the Oregon Coast coho salmon ESU has 

improved to a moderate certainty that the ESU is sustainable (NWFSC 2015; NMFS 2016c). 

This finding reflects positive long-term abundance trends and escapement, and increases in DSS

scores for ESU persistence and sustainability (NWFSC 2015; Lewis 2015). The improvements in 

biological status are likely due primarily to previous management decisions (reduced harvest and 

hatchery releases). They, however, are also tied largely to favorable marine survival, which can 

change quickly. The NWFSC concluded that with marine survival rates expected to decrease for 

Oregon Coast coho salmon entering the ocean in 2014 (Peterson et al. 2014, 2015, and 2016), it 

may be advisable to wait to observe how populations fare during this potential downturn before 

deciding to change their status (NWFSC 2015). The key to improving the overall status of 

Oregon Coast coho salmon is improving freshwater habitat productivity as the best (if not the 

only) hedge against marine survival cycles that are likely to persist forever.

NMFS has determined, based on the NWFSC (2015) review and our own analysis of the ESA 

section 4(a)(1) factors, that the collective risk to the Oregon Coast coho salmon ESU persistence 

has not changed significantly since the 2012 status review (Stout et al. 2012). Thus, the

implementation of sound management actions in each H—habitat, hydropower, hatcheries, and 

harvest—is essential to the recovery of the Oregon Coast coho salmon and must continue

(NMFS 2016c).

Since the quantitative assessments of trends in habitat conditions described in Section 4.3.2 for 

ESA recovery have been set at the stratum level, we do not have delisting criteria for habitat at 

the population level. In order to provide practical guidance and targets for improving habitat at 

the population level, we will work with ODFW and other partners to develop and implement 

enhanced abilities to track changes in key habitat features with a goal of ensuring that there are 

adequate quantity and quality of rearing habitat over time. 

We will also work with all our partners to set population-specific habitat targets and action plans. 

Our intent is to post these targets and plans on the NMFS regional website.42 F

43

43http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/protected_species/salmon_steelhead/recovery_planning_and_implementation/oregon_

coast/oregon_coast_salmon_recovery_domain.html

Text Box 5-1. Closing the Gap

To close the gap between the current situation and recovery, the strategies and actions in Chapter 6 

focus on improving (and documenting) the status of Limiting Factors A and D by ensuring long-term 

protection and improvement in the quantity and quality of rearing habitat. To do this, NMFS has 

determined that key strategies are to:

• Guide enhanced voluntary programs to restore key habitat areas and features, 

• keep track of the implementation and effectiveness of these programs, 

• ensure the protection of habitat that is currently functioning (not just restoring degraded habitat) 

with effective regulatory backstops, and

• employ the best available monitoring methods to assess the net change in key habitat features.

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016

 
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 6-1

6. Recovery Strategies and Actions

The ESA requires that recovery plans; “...to the maximum extent practicable ..., incorporate ... 

a description of such site-specific management actions as may be necessary to achieve the plan’s 

goal for the conservation and survival of the species...” This chapter describes multiple recovery 

strategies and site-specific management actions for Oregon Coast coho salmon which are based 

on the best scientific data available and designed to help meet the goals described in Chapter 4 

and fill the gaps described in Chapter 5. As explained in the Disclaimer at the beginning of this 

Plan, this is a guidance and planning document, not a regulatory document. Instead, as explained 

in Chapter 1, the Plan provides a suggested roadmap to recovery. The strategies and actions in 

this chapter are therefore suggestions, not requirements, and not delisting criteria (which are in 

Chapter 4). We emphasize that there are multiple scenarios that could constitute recovery under 

the ESA, and a variety of strategies and actions that would lead to those scenarios.

We present the strategies and site-specific management actions at the ESU level for all listing 

factors, and at the stratum levels for habitat to provide the foundation for charting our recovery 

efforts. Additional activities within each stratum will be presented in the Recovery 

Implementation Schedule.43F

44

NMFS recognizes that there are many important species and natural resources in Oregon that are 

in need of assistance. Implementing recovery actions for Oregon Coast coho salmon will benefit 

many of those species and resources in western Oregon. In particular, we support a cooperative, 

collaborative effort among agencies and stakeholders to achieve water quality standards as an 

effective approach to protecting and restoring salmon habitat. 

Considerable progress has been made in improving the status of Oregon Coast coho salmon over 

the past twenty years. Since ESA listing, threats posed by fisheries and hatcheries have largely 

been addressed. Changes in fishery management since 1993 significantly reduced harvest 

mortalities and harvest-related threats to the ESU. Steps taken by ODFW and others to improve 

hatchery practices have minimized adverse impacts of hatcheries on the Oregon Coast coho 

salmon ESU. Further, actions by state, federal, and local organizations and individuals have 

improved habitat access and conditions in many areas.

NMFS’ overall recovery direction for Oregon Coast coho salmon centers on restoring degraded 

habitats and the ecosystem processes and functions that affect those habitats, and protecting 

habitats that are currently functioning through effective regulatory backstops. The primary focus 

is to protect and restore freshwater and estuarine rearing habitats upon which egg-to-smolt 

survival, and overall productivity, depends, so the highest priorities are for the strategies and 

actions related to rearing habitats. 

Oregon Coast coho salmon populations responded to favorable marine conditions and changes in 

fisheries management since listing. In the most recent status review update (NWFSC 2016), we 

44 The Recovery Implementation Schedule will be posted on the NOAA Fisheries website:

http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/protected_species/salmon_steelhead/recovery_planning_and_implementation/oregon_co

ast/oregon_coast_salmon_recovery_domain.html.

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016

 
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 6-2

determined that we have a moderate certainty that the ESU is sustainable. While coho salmon 

sustainability has increased, there is uncertainty about the reason for this improvement—is it due 

mostly to (and dependent on) favorable marine survival, or is it also due to improved freshwater 

productivity? Based on the best available science, we remain concerned that the current quality 

(especially temperature) and quantity of freshwater habitats leaves the ESU susceptible to 

extinction, particularly if global climate change leads to a long-term downward trend in 

freshwater and marine coho salmon habitat compared to current conditions. In response to this 

concern, we recommend continued, and enhanced, monitoring to quantify the net change in key 

habitat features. Uncertainty also remains concerning predation on Oregon Coast coho salmon

from non-native fish species, such as smallmouth and largemouth bass, particularly in the Lakes 

Stratum.

6.1 Assumptions

Based on the best available science, it is NMFS’ opinion that the current strengthened status of 

the Oregon Coast coho salmon populations is primarily due to a combination of reduced harvest 

and hatchery production and high marine survival, and that actions to protect and restore 

ecological factors will result in reduced risks, increased survival, and resiliency. Because of the 

species’ complex life cycle, and the many changes that have taken place in their environment, we 

must address the factors limiting their survival in an integrated way. The conservation efforts, 

especially habitat protection and restoration, need to occur at regional and state levels, in terms 

of commitment to actions and funding, and at the local level, population by population. Each 

population and stratum contributes systematically to the well-being of the species. The 

integration of recovery actions for the populations and strata, along with broader conservation 

and recovery efforts already underway in the region, will collectively help to delist the species. 

Key Assumptions

In designing an effective recovery strategy, we make a number of assumptions that, if true and 

properly addressed, will lead to the delisting of the species. These assumptions include:

• We have accurately identified the limiting factors and threats affecting the fish. 

This recovery strategy reflects the best technical information available and our current 

understanding of the limiting factors and threats that affect ESU viability.

• The increased viability of the ESU since the 1990s is due in part to the reduced threat 

from coho salmon hatchery production.

Because the hatchery production of coho salmon was curtailed since the early 1990’s, the 

natural productivity of coho salmon has improved. Buhle et al. (2009) estimated an 

increase in natural coho salmon productivity of 27 percent from the hatchery reforms in 

the early 1990’s to the 1997-2000 brood cycles. This increase in productivity from 

hatchery reforms likely still persists, but it is unknown to what extent.

• Current harvest management regimes that allow harvest of a portion of native Oregon 

Coast coho salmon run have greatly reduced threats to ESU recovery.

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 6-3

While overharvest of Oregon Coast coho salmon was one of the factors leading to the 

species decline, fishery impacts have been dramatically curtailed since ESA listing. 

Fishery impacts are now managed under Amendment 13 of the Pacific Fishery 

Management Council’s Pacific Coast Salmon Fishery Management Plan, which reduced 

risks from fishery-related impacts. Continued adaptive management of harvest will 

ensure that it does not impede the recovery of any population of coho salmon in the ESU.

• Addressing the limiting factors and threats will improve the viability of each population, 

stratum, and the ESU. 

Multiple human activities (threats) have contributed to the decline of this ESU. Activities 

contributing to degraded habitat, including impaired water quality, continue to limit its 

viability. Since hatcheries and harvest are not currently impeding recovery, the strongest 

case for recovery and delisting will involve reductions in multiple threats and the related 

limiting factors to Oregon Coast coho salmon habitat. 

Our strategy focuses on addressing habitat-related threats that currently impact recovery. 

Most of the recommended actions target the protection and restoration of freshwater and 

estuarine habitats and are consistent with actions needed to achieve the state’s water 

quality standards in the range of Oregon Coast coho salmon. The strategy also recognizes

that there are unknowns regarding our understanding of the specific issues that affect the 

fish now, or might influence their recovery in the future. As a result, the strategy includes 

actions to gain critical information about the factors that affect the fish, or may affect the 

fish given global climate change. Continuing effective research, monitoring, and 

evaluation is critical to our success.

• The Plan is based on technically sound ecological principles that will allow us to meet 

the needs of the species.

Our overall recovery strategy recognizes that efforts to address habitat, harvest, and 

hatchery threats affecting Oregon Coast coho salmon need to be planned and 

implemented with a clear understanding of ecological processes—including both 

biological and habitat processes—and how past and current activities affect these 

processes.

• Increasing rearing habitat capacity is the best way to improve the resilience of Oregon 

Coast coho salmon in the face of anticipated future reductions in marine survival and, 

along with improved habitat protection, could be enough to achieve species recovery. 

This is the most important assumption in the recovery plan. Actions to protect and 

improve juvenile rearing habitats form the foundation of the overall recovery strategy for 

the Oregon Coast coho salmon ESU. Coho salmon often reside in freshwater and 

estuarine areas for up to half of their life, so their viability is heavily influenced by the 

health of these ecosystems. Protecting existing high quality and good quality habitat and 

restoring damaged rearing habitat means that more juvenile fish will survive to migrate, 

and consequently more adults will return to the area. This added boost in species 

productivity will help ensure that the ESU can survive expected impending downturns in 

ocean survival. Increasing rearing habitat capacity will reduce or eliminate the primary 

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 6-4

limitation on productivity when spawner abundance is high, and also when it is low. This 

will result in more smolts per spawner, which, based on our assumptions, is the best way 

to minimize the threat of poor ocean survival.

• Voluntary efforts to protect and restore natural watershed processes and functions, and 

the habitat upon which native species depend are critical and necessary for species 

recovery, but effective regulatory backstops are necessary to ensure sufficient reduction 

of indirect and direct threats and achieve the long-term goals of the ESA.

In the long run, the many people who live, work, and recreate within the range of Oregon 

Coast coho salmon will bear a large responsibility for the ongoing protection and 

restoration of salmon habitat. NMFS appreciates and applauds the many voluntary 

contributions to protect and restore salmon habitat within the ESU, and will continue to 

work with the state of Oregon and others to support these voluntary efforts. However, we

are on record about the inadequacies of regulatory mechanisms in the past relating to 

forest, agricultural, and floodplain practices. For the long-term persistence of Oregon 

Coast coho salmon, we prefer that effective regulatory mechanisms provide stronger 

‘backstops’ to the voluntary programs than they do now. Without stronger regulatory 

backstops in place, the burden of achieving recovery goal and delisting falls heavily on 

the effectiveness of the voluntary programs and the documentation of what they have 

accomplished. Thus, we recommend that the state enhance its protective regulatory 

mechanisms as well as its voluntary efforts. This will promote the use of best 

management practices that support the long-term restoration and conservation of healthy 

habitats, including water quality, for Oregon Coast coho salmon.

• Long-term persistence of the Oregon Coast coho salmon ESU will be enhanced by 

development of partnerships that integrate the needs of salmon and the environmental 

processes that form their habitat with the needs of communities and stakeholders. 

For this recovery plan to be effective, it will be helpful to develop and implement a 

common framework, including consistent use of terminology, which will provide 

consistency among local plans and help to ensure that recovery efforts are strategic, 

comprehensive and proactive. This requires a multi-faceted effort with coordination 

between federal, state, and local agencies and the private sector, and linkage between 

efforts at the watershed, population, stratum, and ESU levels. Our long-term approach 

needs to be watershed process- oriented. Since changes in land use associated with 

human development have placed many pressures on stream and riparian ecosystems 

throughout the ESU, an important element in our Plan is to identify watershed-level 

efforts that could, if implemented, address the threats that are the causes of ecosystem 

impairment. We also need to define a common vocabulary, tools, and framework that 

allow us to measure our accomplishments consistently and effectively. We intend to 

integrate these efforts, working with landowners, businesses, non-governmental and 

governmental organizations to find ways to accomplish multiple goals.

• An effective adaptive management approach will allow us to gain an understanding of 

each limiting factor and the specific actions that can modify the species’ environment and 

result in a biological response (through improvements in productivity, abundance, spatial 

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 6-5

structure, and diversity).

The recovery strategy and subsequent actions reflect our current understanding of 

limiting factors and threats to Oregon Coast coho salmon at the population, stratum, and 

ESU levels. However, we understand that actions may not yield desired results, gaps in 

data may emerge, and recovery efforts may need to be adapted. Acknowledging these 

limitations and integrating adaptive management into the recovery plan is an essential 

part of the recovery strategy. Through an adaptive management process, we will be able 

to recognize limitations and account for them in our approach, allowing recovery efforts 

to adjust to the uncertainty of the future. We will work with our partners to reevaluate 

and update the recovery strategies, actions, and activities as new information becomes 

available.

6.2 Recovery Strategies and Actions at the ESU Level

Our overall recovery strategy for Oregon Coast coho salmon aims to establish self-sustaining, 

naturally spawning populations in the wild that are sufficiently abundant, productive, and diverse 

and no longer need Endangered Species Act protection. As the species continues to recover over 

time, NMFS supports the attainment of broader goals that go beyond achieving species recovery 

under the ESA in order to provide multiple ecological, cultural, social, and economic benefits.

Our Oregon Coast coho salmon recovery strategy has a single overriding focus: ensuring 

protection of high quality habitat and restoring degraded habitat. Related state and federal 

scientific reports and findings identify diminished floodplain, reduced stream complexity, 

degraded water quality (especially increased temperature), reduced water quantity, and, for the 

Lakes Stratum populations, non-native fish predators as the primary and secondary factors that 

continue to threaten ESU viability (see Table 3-2). Our recovery strategy focuses on addressing 

these habitat-related limiting factors. At the same time, we will support and will continue the 

reforms already implemented for Oregon Coast coho salmon harvest and hatchery management, 

and work with ODFW and the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) to update these 

reforms as needed to achieve and maintain ESU viability. The comprehensive strategy for each 

ESA listing factor includes one or more of three basic elements: voluntary actions, regulatory 

mechanisms, and enforcement of laws and regulations. The following sections describe strategies 

and actions to address each listing factor. Table 6-1 at the end of this section shows potential 

voluntary, regulation, and enforcement strategies for each listing factor. 

6.2.1 ESU Level Strategies and Actions to Improve Habitat (Listing Factors A 

and D) at the ESU level

Strategies that start with protecting and restoring natural watershed processes will be more 

effective at reaching goals than strategies that start at project-level scales. To do this, we will 

need to deal with both direct and indirect threats.

Studies by the NWFSC and others show that habitat conditions and aquatic ecosystem function 

are a result of the interaction between watershed and estuarine controls (such as geology and 

climate), watershed and estuarine processes (such as hydrology and sediment transport), and land 

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 6-6

use. Scientists and resource managers have recognized that restoration planning that carefully 

integrates watershed or ecosystem processes is more likely to be successful at restoring depleted 

salmonid populations (Beechie et al. 2003). Strategic restoration of natural watershed processes 

that form and sustain salmon habitats provides for long-term protection of salmon habitat. This 

principle is illustrated by the following analogy: When you walk into a room where water is 

spilling onto the floor, do you start mopping it up, or do you first turn off the water? Applying 

this analogy to salmon recovery, we suggest that side-stepping or ignoring impaired watershed 

processes and starting with site-specific, project-level proposals to restore habitat can be 

analogous to mopping the floor when the water is still running. In many cases, the most obvious 

strategy is to attempt to reduce or eliminate a direct threat, but you often get more leverage if you 

intervene on an indirect threat or opportunity that is part of a chain of factors affecting a direct 

threat.

In accordance with the ESA section 7(a)(1), we intend to work with federal agencies to find 

ways for them to be more proactive in increasing federal interagency contributions to 

conservation, protection, and recovery of species and habitat. This can be through voluntary 

actions and via section 7 ESA consultations.

6.2.1.1 Strategy to Improve Habitat at the ESU Level

Our habitat strategy recognizes that recovery demands the application of well-formulated, 

scientifically sound approaches. It is founded on the concepts presented in several salmonid 

habitat recovery planning documents and scientific studies (e.g., Beechie and Boulton 1999; 

Roni et al. 2002; Beechie et al. 2003; Roni et al. 2005; Stanley et al. 2005; Isaak et al. 2007;

Roni et al. 2008; Beechie et al. 2010; Beechie et al. 2012; Roni and Beechie 2013). A review by 

Roni et al. (2008) of 345 studies on the effectiveness of stream rehabilitation illustrates the 

importance of this approach. The authors found that the failure of rehabilitation projects to 

achieve objectives could often be attributed to an inadequate assessment of the historical 

conditions and the factors limiting biotic production, a poor understanding of watershed-scale 

processes that influence local projects, and monitoring at inappropriate spatial and temporal 

scales. They suggested that as an interim approach, high quality habitats should be protected and 

connectivity restored before implementing instream habitat improvement projects (NMFS 2010).

Beechie et al. (2010) outlined four principles that would ensure that river restoration is guided 

toward sustainable actions: 

1. address the root cause of degradation,

2. be consistent with the physical and biological potential of the site, 

3. scale actions to be commensurate with the environmental problems, and 

4. clearly articulate the expected outcomes.

An important element in our Plan is to identify strategies that could, if implemented, address the 

root causes of ecosystem impairment, such as re-establishing natural sediment deposition zones 

in floodplain areas, thus improving water quality and providing access to valuable rearing 

habitat. By reducing or eliminating indirect threats (e.g., amending statutes, regulations, policies, 

and economic incentives) that allow or encourage the direct threats to continue, we could make 

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 6-7

significant progress towards modifying human activities and restoring processes that form and 

sustain coho salmon populations.

Figure 6-1. Relationships between human activities, watershed processes and fish response.

1. Restore watershed and estuarine processes to increase rearing habitat quality and capacity. 

Research indicates that increasing rearing habitat (including quality, quantity, and diversity of 

habitat) is the best way to improve the resilience of Oregon Coast coho salmon in the face of 

anticipated reductions in marine survival in the future. Increasing rearing habitat capacity will 

reduce or eliminate the primary limitation on productivity when spawner abundance is high, and 

also when it is low. This will result in more smolts per spawner, which, based on our 

assumptions, is the best way to minimize the threat of poor ocean survival.

Although population dependent, in general, NMFS and ODFW scientists have determined that 

increasing overwinter rearing habitat is the top priority for ESU recovery and increasing summer 

rearing habitat is the second highest priority. These are the two juvenile life stages that are most 

limiting recovery of Oregon Coast coho salmon. New information (e.g., Koski 2009; Jones et al.

2014) has also focused on the estuarine life stage for juvenile coho salmon (transitioning from 

freshwater to saltwater) as important to recovery and maintaining diverse life history strategies.

High quality juvenile rearing habitat for coho salmon is a reflection of stream (and for many 

populations, estuarine) complexity, which is shaped by a combination of several key watershed 

processes that influence hydrologic, sediment, riparian, channel, biological, floodplain and 

estuarine habitat functions. High quality overwintering habitat for juvenile fish provides refuge 

from high velocity flows and usually contains one or more of the following features: connected 

floodplains and wetlands with attached off-channel alcoves, beaver dams and ponds, lakes, and 

channels with large wood and debris and deep pools (ODFW 2007 and Cluer 2016). In addition, 

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 6-8

while more than one set of habitat conditions is capable of providing overwinter habitat for 

juvenile survival, high quality and quantity overwintering habitat is found only in areas where 

the stream is low gradient and connected with areas alongside the stream (ODFW 2007); in other 

words, floodplains (Cluer 2016). High quality summer- rearing habitat contains many of the same 

features as winter rearing habitat, but foremost provides refuge from high summer water 

temperatures.

Natural watershed-level and reach-level physical and biological processes form the habitat 

features that salmon need. A long-term goal of salmon recovery is the restoration and protection 

of these natural processes to the extent that they can continue to create salmon habitat. Key 

watershed-scale processes include the following features (Roni and Beechie 2013, Table 2.1):

• Watershed-scale processes:

o Runoff and stream flow,

o Erosion and sediment supply, and

o Nutrient delivery.

• Reach-scale processes:

o Riparian processes (shading, root reinforcement of banks, wood supply, sediment 

retention, litter fall etc.);

o Stream flow and flood storage;

o Sediment transport and storage;

o Channel, floodplain, and habitat dynamics;

o Organic matter transport and storage; and

o Instream biological processes.

Protecting and restoring these freshwater and estuarine processes is a general recovery strategy 

applicable to all listed salmonid species, including Oregon Coast coho salmon.

2. Ensure long-term ecosystem functions and high quality habitat by reducing habitat- related 

threats and encouraging formation of beaver dams and beaver dam analogues.

Specific physical and biological features are essential to the conservation of the ESU. For 

example, connected and periodically inundated floodplains, channel complexity, spawning 

gravels, water quality and quantity, side channels, estuary habitat, and healthy food webs

support one or more life stages of the Oregon Coast coho salmon ESU as sites for spawning, 

rearing, migration, and foraging). These sites and associated features include:

• Freshwater spawning sites with water quantity and quality conditions and substrate 

supporting spawning, incubation and larval development;

• Freshwater rearing sites with water quantity and floodplain connectivity to form and 

maintain physical habitat conditions and support juvenile growth and mobility in summer 

and winter; water quality and forage supporting juvenile development; and natural cover 

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 6-9

such as summer shade and some turbidity (Cluer 2016), submerged and overhanging 

large wood, log jams, beaver dams and ponds, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and 

boulders, side channels, and undercut banks (this is the top priority for Oregon Coast 

coho salmon recovery);

• Freshwater migration areas free of obstruction with water quantity and quality conditions 

and natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, 

large rocks and boulders, side channels, and undercut banks supporting juvenile mobility 

and growth during outmigration, and adult mobility and survival as return spawners; 

• Diverse estuarine habitats (including floodplains) free of artificial obstructions with water 

quality and salinity conditions supporting juvenile and adult physiological transitions 

between fresh- and saltwater; natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large 

wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, and side channels; and juvenile and 

adult forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and 

maturation; and 

• Nearshore marine areas free of obstruction with water quality and quantity conditions and 

forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and maturation.

Protecting and restoring these types of sites, and the features associated with them, constitutes a 

high priority general recovery strategy applicable to all listed salmonid species, including 

Oregon Coast coho salmon.

Improving ecosystem function by increasing the number of beaver dams and beaver dam 

analogues (human-made, channel-spanning structures that mimic or reinforce beaver dams) is an 

important tool in the overall strategy to restore habitat. These dam structures support creation of 

coho salmon rearing habitat by impounding water and retaining sediment, and generally 

facilitating fluvial geomorphic changes that can result in increased stream sinuosity, pool 

formation, and reconnected and expanded floodplains. Besides increasing stream complexity, 

beaver dams and beaver dam analogues act to raise water tables in alluvial aquifers, thus helping 

to increase summer stream flows, reduce stream temperatures, and expand riparian areas and 

wetlands. Tools for increasing beaver activity, and their associated benefits, are described in The 

Beaver Restoration Guidebook: Working with Beaver to Restore Streams, Wetlands, and 

Floodplains (Pollock et al. 2015). The handbook is available online at: http://www.fws.gov/

oregonfwo/ToolsForLandowners/RiverScience/Beaver.asp. 

3. Improve and recover the species through a common framework and innovative 

partnerships. 

Since multiple causes are responsible for impairing population viability, disrupting ecosystem 

functions and contributing to habitat loss and degradation, the habitat- related threats and factors 

that limit Oregon Coast coho salmon viability will need to be addressed in concert. Development 

and implementation of management actions that lead to recovery will require a sound 

understanding of conservation biology principles and ecosystem management as well as 

integration of planning, regulation, action implementation, funding, and monitoring such that 

each contributes to reaching our end goal. Consequently, our recovery strategy calls for 

increasing effectiveness of voluntary actions and regulatory mechanisms (including enforcement 

of existing laws and regulations and revisions as warranted). 

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 6-10

As part of our strategy, NMFS aims to strengthen partnerships with governmental and 

nongovernmental organizations and others to encourage collaboration toward recovery and 

conservation of Oregon Coast coho salmon populations. NMFS will encourage a combination of 

regulatory programs plus effective long-term participation in non-regulatory, voluntary 

conservation work to achieve ESU viability. On the regulatory front, it may be necessary to 

strengthen laws and/or regulations related to some habitat-altering actions and/ or boost 

enforcement of existing regulatory mechanisms to provide habitat conditions that can support a 

sustainable ESU. On the non-regulatory front, we will continue to encourage and support 

conservation work by tribes, private landowners, local conservation groups (soil and water 

conservation districts, watershed councils, forestland owners, Salmon and Trout Enhancement 

Program (STEP) volunteers, etc.) and others to improve ecological processes and habitats, 

particularly in areas with the greatest potential to create and/or support high quality coho salmon 

rearing habitat.

The strategy calls for development of a common framework that links actions at the population

and watershed level to those at the ESU level. Creating a common framework will provide 

standardized vocabulary, indicators, and a shared common approach to describe the natural 

systems and the stresses and threats that degrade them in a consistent manner across the 

populations, strata, and the entire ESU. This allows us to connect local, watershed-level 

information with stratum-level and ESU-level information. The impacts of our different 

conservation investments also can be added (rolled up) by measuring a common suite of 

indicators adopted in the framework. It provides a strategic approach to recovery that coordinates 

efforts to improve key watershed processes and habitats so they effectively support recovery 

goals for individual coho salmon populations and ESU. This consistency also improves our 

ability to assess the effectiveness of salmon recovery efforts, to identify uncertainties, and to 

update priorities and actions. 

Consistent with our strategic direction for coho salmon recovery, NMFS will continue to support 

ongoing efforts to develop this common framework. One example was begun in 2014, when 

NMFS joined a small team from public and private organizations to develop a common 

framework using the ‘business plan’ approach that has been used successfully throughout the 

country to: 

1. articulate shared and achievable conservation outcomes; 

2. describe a scientifically driven path for implementation of priorities that can be tied to 

clear measures of progress; and 

3. leverage and focus public and private investments. 

In December 2014, the project team, which includes ODFW, NMFS, the NOAA Restoration 

Center, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF), Wild Salmon Center (WSC), and 

Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB), launched the Oregon Coast Coho Business 

Plan effort by calling for letters of interest from partnerships working on the Oregon coast to 

participate in the development of a common framework for use in the Oregon Coast coho salmon 

recovery plan and pilot strategic action plans at the population level.

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 6-11

The Team selected the Nehalem, Siuslaw, and Elk partnerships to participate in developing pilot 

Strategic Action Plans (SAPs) as part of the Business Plan initiative. To facilitate the 

development of a common framework for coast coho salmon, the Team is using some element of 

the Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation44F

45 (Open Standards). Open Standards is a 

five-step approach used to guide decision-making that has been employed successfully in salmon 

recovery planning in California and Washington’s Puget Sound.

The consistent terminology and metrics established through a common framework will allow 

funders and other stakeholders to identify common priorities among habitat restoration groups 

and ‘roll up’ local implementation efforts to better evaluate cumulative impacts. The Team 

managing this effort seeks to advance these goals through a collaborative process that engages 

local communities and landowners, while promoting regional economic development. Local 

outreach efforts by the Team to date indicate that there is considerable interest in supporting 

implementation of the Business Plan and its constituent SAPS. 

Another key part of the recovery strategy is to support ongoing efforts associated with the 

Oregon Coast Coho Conservation Plan, as enhanced by recent state initiatives described in 

Chapters 3 and 8. Consistent with sections 4 and 6 of the ESA, NMFS is working with the state 

of Oregon to develop and implement site-specific actions to protect and improve habitat for 

Oregon Coast coho salmon. Our support for the Oregon Coast Coho Conservation Plan includes 

using its Implementation Team and Implementation Schedules, and/or other initiatives that 

replace or supplement the ongoing efforts as strategies to address degraded habitat (Listing 

Factor A). This avoids unnecessary duplication and enhances the effectiveness of our 

partnerships. We consider the excerpt from the Oregon Coast Coho Conservation Plan (page 26) 

shown in Text Box 6-1 to be consistent with this federal recovery plan.

45 Conservation Measures Partnership: Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation from Version 3.0 (April 2013) 

http://www.conservationmeasures.org/initiatives/standards-for-project-management.

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016

 
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 6-12

4. Implement an adaptive management process to track progress toward recovery, monitor and 

evaluate key information needs, assess results, and refine strategies and actions accordingly.

Adaptive management will play a key role in the recovery strategy for Oregon Coast coho 

salmon. Successful implementation of the strategy requires a process to track progress, define 

weaknesses, and adjust course appropriately. The ESA section 4(f) requires site-specific actions 

“as may be necessary to achieve the Plan’s goals for conservation and survival of the species.” 

Our overarching hypothesis is that the actions recommended in this Plan will be effective in 

improving Oregon Coast coho salmon viability. Chapter 9 describes our approach to research, 

monitoring, evaluation, and adaptive management to ensure that this hypothesis is tested and our 

actions are adjusted based on new information.

Our strategy includes developing a step-by-step approach to define watershed- or populationlevel strategies and actions that will integrate the best available science relating to salmon habitat 

with a structured framework that will ensure consistency for the recovery plan. The adaptive 

approach will also aid in defining complementary research, monitoring, and evaluation actions to 

improve our understanding of the species and habitat responses and management action 

effectiveness, and to help guide us in better defining opportunities to achieve recovery. We also 

employ a life-cycle context to determine the best ways for closing the gap between the species’ 

status and achieving viability objectives.

Text Box 6-1. Related Direction in Oregon Coast Coho Conservation Plan

The Conservation Plan depends on a strategy of effective implementation by multiple entities, of

complex programmatic and non-regulatory efforts at multiple spatial scales, including the following.

1. Continue statewide implementation of the Oregon Plan with emphasis on addressing 

potential limiting factors via management action across the entire freshwater, estuarine, and 

ocean life cycle of the species.

2. Maintain the productive capacity of the ESU and populations by conserving and increasing 

the amount of high quality habitat across the ESU and insuring adequate dispersal corridors 

between areas with high quality habitat.

3. Restore processes that create and sustain high quality habitat. Where necessary, implement 

both short-term and long-term habitat restoration projects. The goal of these activities is to 

significantly increase the productive capacity of coho salmon habitat across the ESU.

4. Provide guidance to support policy decisions regarding prioritization of conservation 

investments to achieve the desired status goal for the Coast coho ESU.

5. Implement ESU-wide evaluation of Coho Winter High Intrinsic Potential Habitat (CWHIP) 

models and mapping methodologies (see Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation section).

6. Support development – in consultation with community-based watershed entities – of longterm conservation strategies that address limiting factors at scales within populations.

7. Continue participation in regional conservation and monitoring strategies including various 

state and federal managers (NW Forest Plan, Pacific Northwest Aquatic Monitoring

Partnership, various Oregon Conservation Strategies, etc.).

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 6-13

Figure 6-2. Step-by-step approach to restoring riverine processes and habitats through an adaptive management process.

ODFW has designed and implemented a scientifically designed habitat monitoring program, but

usable results to date are available only at the stratum, not population, scale and show mostly a 

flat trend for key indicators at the stratum level (see Figure 3-3). This suggests that: (1) it may 

take a long time to show an upward trend, (2) the metrics may not be very sensitive to change, 

and/or (3) restoration activities have just kept pace with continued habitat degradation. NMFS 

will work with ODFW and others to improve our processes for tracking and evaluating progress 

toward recovery. This will include developing a means to track the net change in Oregon Coast 

coho salmon habitat over time. The process will be based on the principle that restoration by 

itself is inadequate (and a cost-ineffective approach) to ensure long-term ecosystem functions 

and high quality habitat, and that actions need to be continuously reassessed and improved over 

time. 

6.2.1.2 Habitat Management Actions at the ESU Level

The following discussion identifies common approaches that can be used to alleviate or 

minimize the primary limiting factors and associated threats for Oregon Coast coho salmon. The 

actions are intended to increase productivity, abundance, and spatial structure for the fish 

populations by reducing or removing the existing threats causing the limiting factors. Actions 

taken to address the threats, and therefore the limiting factors, will be very similar across many 

of the coho salmon populations because of the similarity in historical land management practices.

The watersheds that support populations of Oregon Coast coho salmon share many features in 

common, although there are some exceptions. For instance, some watersheds have ecosystem 

processes that are more severely impaired than others; three of the populations are lake-oriented 

populations; many populations have substantial estuaries, while some have minimal estuarine 

habitats; and there are differences in some geological features. 

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 6-14

Because of the many similarities between the habitats of the populations, we provide a list of 

habitat management actions that are generally applicable to the ESU. Many of the actions aim to 

restore and maintain ecological processes in the watersheds that create healthy habitat 

conditions. They focus on adjusting land and water management activities to increase the amount 

of coho salmon habitat and, within the habitat, restore the key processes and features described 

earlier. Together they reduce soil erosion, regain instream habitat complexity, restore riparian 

and floodplain connectivity, and improve water quality and streamflow. They include activities 

to improve stream complexity by adding large wood and other structure to create pools and cover 

for rearing fish. They increase salmon access to historical habitats by removing passage barriers.

The list of habitat management actions is provided as guidance and for planning purposes. The 

list was compiled using existing documents, including three related coho recovery plans 

(OCCCP, SONCC, and Lower Columbia) and the scientific literature mentioned throughout this 

Plan. We intend that this list serve as a ‘menu’ of the types of site-specific management actions 

that will contribute to the recovery of Oregon Coast coho salmon. The proposed actions do not 

preclude implementation of other actions that may be carried out for different purposes and 

goals. Further, new threats, and thus actions and priorities, may emerge in the future or as new 

information becomes available.

The actions will be further refined, sequenced, and scheduled in coordination with other 

agencies. The list of actions includes those for implementation at the ESU level, and at the 

stratum or population level. In Chapter 7, we provide estimates of time and costs, and the 

priorities for recovery actions. The Recovery Implementation Schedule describes activities 

designed to implement the strategies and actions in the Plan at the stratum and population levels. 

The Recovery Implementation Schedule will be used in securing and obligating funds, and in 

establishing associated regulatory and other management priorities. The Recovery 

Implementation Schedule, in conjunction with the actions in this Plan, provides the basis for 

tracking plan implementation performance. 

Listing Factor A1: Habitat actions at the ESU Level

Design actions including multiple tools that contribute to the restoration and protection of natural 

watershed-scale and reach-scale physical and biological processes including the re-establishment 

of connected floodplain habitats.

A1-1 Enhance the effectiveness of voluntary programs and ensure that regulatory backstop 

mechanisms and other approaches are in place to provide increased protection for Oregon 

Coast coho salmon habitat. Considerations for voluntary programs include increasing the 

capability and financial and technical support coast-wide and for local organizations 

(watershed councils, soil and water conservation districts, etc.). In this context, we 

recommend strategies and actions that take climate change into account:

“Restoring floodplain connectivity, restoring stream flow regimes, and re-aggrading

incised channels are most likely to ameliorate stream flow and temperature changes 

and increase habitat diversity and population resilience. By contrast, most restoration 

actions focused on in-stream rehabilitation are unlikely to ameliorate climate change 

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 6-15

effects Beechie et al. 2012).”

NMFS supports multi-agency collaboration to prioritize opportunities to restore floodplain 

connectivity to increase inundation using voluntary approaches with regulatory backstops. 

A1-1.1 Implement the Beaver Restoration Guidebook (Pollock et al. 2015). Increase 

number of beaver dams and beaver dam analogues (to modify sediment and fluvial 

processes in ways that contribute significantly to coho salmon habitat). To support a

voluntary approach, create and fund a beaver support network of groups that can 

respond to reports of nuisance beavers. The goal of this group would be to offer 

choices to landowners including tree protection, flow devices to lower pond levels, 

translocation and other non-lethal alternatives. The group would also provide

outreach and education about the role of beavers in healthy ecosystems and tools 

that landowners can use, such as the building of beaver dam analogues, to work 

with beaver to improve coho salmon rearing habitat. 

A1-1.2 Seek agreements with APHIS, ODFW, ODOT and other agencies, along with 

timber companies and others, to (1) refer all beaver nuisance reports to the beaver 

support network proposed above, (2) avoid lethal removal of beavers pending use 

of non-lethal methods by the beaver support network, and (3) keep a record of these 

referrals. 

A1-1.3 Increase incentives, such as creating a Beaver Pond Compensation Fund,45 F

46 to 

encourage beaver conservation.

A1-1.4 If necessary, revise regulations and statute(s) relating to beaver management to 

increase the number and size of beaver ponds (which can create prime coho salmon 

rearing habitat).

A1-1.5 Improve implementation, effectiveness and accountability of Oregon’s Agricultural 

Water Quality Management Act in order to achieve water quality goals, including 

quantitative, narrative, and beneficial use criteria. Consistent with the state’s 

emphasis on voluntary efforts, NMFS supports a greatly expanded implementation

of (voluntary) agricultural Focus Areas, with associated mechanisms to track 

progress, to contribute to achieving water quality standards. Progress towards 

achieving water quality standards (particularly temperature and sediment) and coho 

salmon habitat goals can be accelerated by aligning Focus Area work with efforts to 

increase salmon habitat complexity.

A1-1.6 Improve the effectiveness of ecosystem protections in forests, including 

implementation of the Oregon Forest Practices Act. In order to reduce the negative 

impacts of forestry management (reduced recruitment of wood into streams, 

increased water temperature and fine sediment), including modifying the OFPA 

and/or Forest Practice Rules for fish-bearing and non-fish bearing stream reaches

and developing and updating measures for landslide prone areas.

A1-1.7 Modify statutes, regulations, or codes to avoid floodplain development in areas 

where floodplain function is most critical for salmon. Also, achieve a no-net loss 

approach to floodplain function by requiring mitigation for development in 

46 As recommended by Oregon Department of Agriculture (Oregon 2015)

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016

 
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 6-16

floodplains. Options to achieve these goals include modification of implementation 

of the FEMA National Flood Insurance Program, including implementing measures 

identified in the Reasonable and Prudent Action. Or, modification of state or local 

requirements or codes.

A1-1.8 Develop and implement new regulatory, voluntary, and incentivized approaches, as 

necessary, to protect rearing habitats in estuaries from continued degradation and to 

restore habitat and processes (e.g., connectivity) lost to legacy land use practices.

A1-1.9 Support a multi-agency and landowner collaborative effort to inventory and 

prioritize the repair, replacement, and removal of water control structures 

(tidegates) in the range of Oregon Coast coho salmon.

A1-2 Initiate an inter-agency effort to increase collaboration in local and regional planning

efforts. Recognizing that salmon recovery is one of many important goals on the Oregon 

Coast, we recommend that agencies consider forming a caucus or other type of 

arrangement to increase collaboration. Development of a coordinated strategy to leverage 

multiple authorities and resources (including counties and cities) can increase the number 

and effectiveness of ‘win-win’ successes, and NMFS would like to be a constructive 

partner in such an effort.

A1-3 Develop and update guidance for Oregon Coast coho salmon conservation and recovery.

A1-3.1 Develop and use a common framework for population-level plans to facilitate 

‘rolling up’ the strategies and actions, combining these elements with consistent

terminology and approach into an internally consistent ESU-level plan. As 

resources permit, this should include habitat monitoring to ensure that local 

efforts are conducted and reported in a common framework to enhance the 

usefulness of the data collected and a comprehensive analysis of nontidal wetland 

and estuarine habitat losses. This information is important for understanding the 

causes behind coho salmon decline and the potential paths forward to reestablishment of resilience.

A1-3.2 Develop and make available updated summaries of climate change information 

relevant to Oregon Coast coho salmon recovery. Support analyses of this climate 

change information that quantify likely impacts to salmon habitat, during their 

full life history, including temperature and flow impacts, and impacts to rearing 

habitat.

A1-3.3 Develop and make available updated guidance on using the best available 

scientific methods, tools, and approaches to prioritize and sequence activities to 

protect and restore habitat in the most effective manner possible. One suggestion

NMFS has received is that we convene, with partners, a scientific workshop to 

focus available information on the specific challenge that we face with Oregon 

Coast coho salmon—how to most effectively use available resources to improve 

freshwater and estuarine rearing habitat to increase egg-to-smolt survival and life 

history diversity, especially when marine and freshwater conditions are not 

favorable (see the section below on an example of a systematic approach for

developing strategies and actions to protect and restore habitat).

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 6-17

A1-4 Develop and refine additional tools for use by agencies and local organizations to support 

and enhance the protection and restoration of Oregon Coast coho salmon habitat. In 

particular, we intend to work with agency and university scientists, agencies, and 

stakeholders to develop practical approaches to prioritizing habitat efforts at the watershed 

scale. The use of GIS tools and methods, remote sensing (e.g., LIDAR, aerial 

photography), and life-cycle modeling are examples that have the potential to increase the 

sophistication and effectiveness of habitat efforts.

A1-5 Provide secure financial support to implement actions needed to achieve and sustain

recovery to augment current funding sources. We encourage innovative, collaborative

thinking about additional funding sources, such as sales of ‘conservation licenses’ (as

opposed to fishing licenses), taxes or other ideas. 

A1-5.1 Provide stable funding and staffing for existing programs to support achieving 

their mandates. In particular, NMFS supports a significant increase in the number 

of, and financial and technical support for, agricultural Focus Areas in 

collaboration with salmon recovery efforts. Because the Focus Area concept is 

locally driven, it has the potential to significantly accelerate achievement of water 

quality and salmon recovery goals with voluntary efforts if it is greatly expanded, 

provided with technical support and well-funded. 

A1-5.2 Provide adequate funding to provide assistance and incentives to landowners and 

others to implement priority habitat restoration activities. 

A1-5.3 Provide adequate funding and implement research needed to answer critical 

uncertainties and track progress toward achieving recovery goals.

Listing Factor A2: Potential site-specific management actions that contribute to protecting 

and restoring watershed processes

A2-1 For each independent population, develop and approve scientifically credible Strategic 

Action Plans (SAPs) where practicable using a common framework developed for this 

Plan.46F

47 Using these plans, implement the best available science, including, when available, 

life-cycle models and other information about life history strategies and key bottlenecks.

These SAPs should include, when possible, quantitative population-specific escapement 

and habitat protection and restoration goals.

A2-1.1 Prioritize restoration of the stream reaches with high intrinsic potential and good 

habitat condition,47F

48 which will be resilient in the face of climate change impacts.

A2-2 Implement the SAP in each independent population to protect and restore ecosystem 

functions and high priority coho salmon habitat, evaluating each of the following threat 

categories and implementing local activities consistent with the recovery strategies in this 

47 Based on the Conservation Measures Partnership: Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation from Version 3.0 (April 

2013) http://www.conservationmeasures.org/initiatives/standards-for-project-management 48 Specific locations are identified by the ODFW Aquatic Inventories Project: 

http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ODFW/freshwater/inventory/op_reports.htm and other sources of information.

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016

 
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 6-18

section.

A2-2.1 Floodplain condition and connectivity: Protect, reconnect, and restore rearing 

habitat in the floodplains (including, but not limited to, reducing development 

and removing or setting back tidegates, levees, or dikes).

A2-2.2 Hydrology: protect stream hydrology by protecting and restoring patterns of 

sediment and water runoff.

A2-2.3 Agricultural practices (including livestock): NMFS recommends that agencies 

collaborate with each other, SWCDs, WSCs, and others to continue to increase 

the effectiveness of current agricultural water quality area plans, focus areas, and 

rules in order to meet water quality goals. This should provide for pursuing 

voluntary means with increased outreach efforts and incentives (e.g., layered or 

stacked funding to increase the attractiveness of projects to landowners) to 

achieve quantitatively defined goals as well as regulatory approaches.

A2-2.4 Beaver management: provide support to landowners who experience beaverrelated challenges in order to protect both property and beaver and their ponds.

(See actions identified under Listing Factor A1, habitat actions at the ESU level.)

A2-2.5 Channel modification: restore complexity by reducing armament and barriers, 

reconnecting side channels and wetlands, etc., especially in areas with high 

intrinsic potential using the latest available information specific to each location, 

including that provided by ODFW for each population for high intrinsic potential 

coho salmon habitat, barriers, and limiting factors.48 F

49

A2-2.6 Estuarine habitat: Protect and restore tidally influenced habitats (prioritized in 

SAPs) by reconnecting intertidal wetlands and tidal channels by removing dikes, 

levees, and tidegates. This applies throughout the ESU, but especially to the 

larger estuaries, such as, but not limited to, the Coquille, Coos, Umpqua, 

Siuslaw, Yaquina, and Tillamook estuaries.

A2-2.7 Fire and fuel: ensure plans are in place to implement the appropriate strategies 

(e.g., natural fire regime, prevent or control fires in key habitat areas as 

appropriate).

A2-2.8 Habitat complexity: implement a collaborative approach with NMFS, ODFW,

and other scientists to identify the most effective activities to increase stream 

complexity in order to improve winter and summer rearing habitats, including 

establishment of larger, riparian buffers where possible and other methods to 

restore and protect habitat-forming ecosystem processes. 

A2-2.9 Landscape patterns: agencies collaborate in leveraging resources to reduce 

adverse impacts to landscape patterns by promoting protective easements, 

purchases, and financial incentives. 

A2-2.10 Forest management: work with timber owners (including state agencies) to 

increase recruitment of wood and reduce fine sediment and water temperature.

A2-2.11 Mining: work with state agencies to protect ecosystem processes by limiting 

49 http://www.dfw.state.or.us/fish/crp/coastal_coho_conservation_plan.asp

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016

 
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 6-19

gravel and other types of mining in salmon habitat.

A2-2.12 Passage: remove or modify fish passage barriers, such as, tidegates, dams, and 

culverts that are reducing or prohibiting fish passage, to increase rearing habitat.

Maintain existing screens and fish passage structures that currently provide free 

passage during all flow conditions.

A2-2.13 Residential/rural development: work with landowners and agencies to improve 

the protection and restoration of in-stream and riparian areas associated with 

residential and rural properties.

A2-2.14 Riparian condition: Improve practices (forest management, grazing, vegetation 

management, etc.) to restore riparian processes that increase stream complexity 

and bank stability, shade, and improve water quality.

A2-2.15 Roads and railroads: take steps to reduce road densities and the negative impacts 

of roads on salmon habitat, including increased stormwater, fine sediment, and 

impaired passage where roads intersect streams.

A2-2.16 Sediment (fine and coarse): develop a multiagency effort to share data and 

identify and reduce the input of fine sediment into salmon habitat, while 

protecting and restoring spawning gravel where possible. 

A2-2.17 Water quality: coordinate with ODEQ and others to implement activities to 

reduce impairments (especially temperature, stormwater and fine sediment) 

under the Clean Water Act.

A2-2.18 Water quantity: monitor plans for increased water withdrawals and collaborate 

to find ways to meet water demand without increasing threats to Oregon Coast

coho salmon.

A2-3. Develop and implement SAPs, as resources allow, for dependent populations to prevent 

degradation of population status.

A2-3.1 Implement the SAPs for dependent population to protect and restore ecosystem 

functions, prevent degradation of coho salmon habitat, and support recovery of 

independent populations by implementing appropriate actions, similar to A2-2.1 

through A2-2.18.

A2-4 Plan and provide public outreach (coordinated and collaborative effort of local, state, and 

Federal organizations). 

A2-4.1 Provide education on the root causes, lost functions, and historical events/actions 

that led to degraded ecosystem functions and salmon habitat. It is important that

landowners and the public understand what caused coho salmon habitat 

degradation. This understanding will help build support for restoration and 

recovery efforts.

A2-4.2 Identify key opportunity areas to enhance winter rearing habitats for juvenile 

coho salmon through volunteer efforts. 

A2-4.3 Assemble, develop, and distribute outreach materials on the benefits of beaver 

dams to ecosystem functions in general, and specifically to improving juvenile 

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 6-20

coho salmon rearing habitat.49F

50

A2-4.4 Promote volunteer efforts of private landowners and interest groups to implement 

activities that promote watershed processes and functions, increase stream 

complexity, reconnect off-channel and floodplain areas, and improve riparian 

habitat.

A2-4.5 Develop and implement outreach programs providing incentives for volunteer 

efforts to implement activities that restore watershed processes, improve riparian 

value and function, reconnect off-channel and floodplain habitats, and increase 

stream complexity.

Listing Factor A3: Habitat Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation actions at the ESU level

A3-1 Continue to provide research, monitoring, and evaluation to track ecosystem processes 

and habitat conditions to inform the adaptive management of recovery implementation.

A3-2 Continue to monitor habitat conditions and trends at the stratum level; NMFS supports 

expanding the program if resources are available to include non-wadable streams, 

wetlands, and estuaries and population-level trends.

A3-3 Continue to provide funding for current habitat monitoring programs, as well as the 

development and use of remote sensing methods that track the net gain and loss of key 

habitat features, and estimate net changes in coho salmon habitat at the 

population/watershed level.

A3-4 Support a multi-agency effort to enhance the temperature monitoring system in the basins 

that support Oregon Coast coho salmon to better track warm-water and cold-water 

refugia.

A3-5 Implement monitoring to track progress toward achieving habitat goals. 

A3-6 Conduct climate change risk analysis for habitats in all population areas. 

50 Considerable information is already developed and available. See: 

· Needham, M.D. and A. T. Morzillo. 2011. Landowner incentives and tolerances for managing beaver impacts in Oregon. Final 

project report for ODFW and OWEB, Corvallis, OR. 

(http://www.dfw.state.or.us/wildlife/living_with/docs/ODFW%20and%20OWEB%20-

%20Landowner%20Beaver%20Project%20-%20Final%20Report%20-%20Needham%20and%20Morzillo.pdf)

· Guidelines for Relocation of Beaver in Oregon (2012), Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 

(http://www.dfw.state.or.us/wildlife/living_with/docs/Guidelines_for_Relocation_of_Beaver_in_Oregon.pdf)

· Living with Wildlife: American Beaver, ODFW (http://www.dfw.state.or.us/wildlife/living_with/docs/beaver.pdf)

· Pollock, M.M., G. Lewallen, K. Woodruff, C.E. Jordan and J.M. Castro (Eds). The Beaver Restoration Guidebook: Working 

with Beaver to Restore Streams, Wetlands, and Floodplains, Ver. 1.02. USFWS, Portland, Oregon. 

(http://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/ToolsForLandowners/RiverScience/Documents/BRG%20v.1.02.pdf)

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016

 
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 6-21

6.2.1.3 ESU-level Habitat-related Priorities to Support Recovery

The relative priority and timing of goals and objectives is summarized in the following order of 

importance:

1. Collaborate with governmental and nongovernmental organizations and others to protect 

watershed and estuarine processes and functions and coho salmon habitats (rearing and 

spawning) that are currently functioning well, especially winter and summer rearing 

habitat.

2. Collaborate with governmental and non-governmental organizations and others to 

identify and implement actions that will restore watershed and estuarine processes

(including access); provide stream complexity for juvenile rearing; increase shading to 

reduce stream temperature; connect side channels, wetlands and off-channel habitats; and 

reduce sediment levels. Activities should include restoring habitat capacity for rearing 

juvenile coho salmon by increasing large wood loading, beaver habitat, and wetland/offchannel connectivity, and by increasing native riparian vegetation to provide bank 

stability and shade stream reaches during warm summer months.

When necessary, implement restoration actions to improve overwintering habitat 

(primary priority at the ESU level) and summer-rearing habitat (secondary priority at the 

ESU level, but water temperature may become a high priority in some areas), and access 

to estuarine rearing habitats (tidegates, dikes, and levees).

3. Implement the best available scientific methods (including remote sensing) to track the 

net change in Oregon Coast coho salmon habitat over time and progress toward recovery

at the population level (resources permitting).

4. Implement instream and estuarine work, including wood or boulder placement—after or 

in conjunction with reconnections and other efforts to restore natural ecological 

processes.

5. Provide and support public outreach, education, and volunteer actions to protect and 

restore ecosystem process and functions and improve juvenile coho salmon rearing 

habitats.

Step-by-Step Approach for Identifying Strategies and Actions to Protect and Restore Habitat

This section describes an example of a step-by-step approach for developing strategies and 

actions intended to integrate the best available science relating to salmon habitat with a 

structured framework (Open Standards for Conservation and Miradi). The NMFS proposes to 

work with OWEB, ODFW, and others to develop guidelines for developing SAPs that are

watershed-process oriented and apply a systematic, rigorous scientific approach to planning. This

approach focuses on designing strategies and actions that take appropriate measures to address 

the root causes, indirect threats, and direct threats that are causing ecosystem impairment.

Applying a systematic approach like this will also help ensure internal consistency for the 

recovery plan. All this is dependent on adequate funding and other resources.

The step-by-step approach shown here is structured to answer several key science-based 

questions related to salmon habitat protection and restoration (shown in Text Box 6-2). We used 

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 6-22

these questions to design an example of a ten-step process to guide the development and 

implementation of strategies and actions at the ESU, population, and sub-population levels. 

Table 6-1 summarizes these steps, links them to the key questions they address, and identifies 

potential related strategies and actions that could be implemented to improve habitat conditions 

for Oregon Coast coho salmon recovery.

Text Box 6-2

Science-based Questions related to Salmon Habitat Protection and Restoration

1. What are the science-based goals for salmon recovery in terms of biological and ecosystem 

status?

2. What are key life stages of Oregon Coast coho salmon? 

3. In terms of landscape-scale watershed processes, which ones have been impaired enough 

to result in degraded salmon habitat? What are the most important changes from historical 

conditions? What metrics have we used to assess the habitat?

4. What human activities (indirect and direct threats) and natural processes caused the 

important changes in Oregon Coast coho salmon habitat?

4a. direct threats

4b. indirect threats that lead to direct threats

4c. natural processes

5. What are the linkages, as we understand them, between human activities, impaired 

landscape-scale watershed processes, degraded salmon habitat, and the biological health 

(viability or sustainability) of Oregon Coast coho salmon populations? 

6. What are the basic and component strategies that NMFS recommends to reduce or 

eliminate habitat-related threats? 

6a. basic strategy

6b. strategies to address indirect threats

6c. strategies to address direct threats

6d. strategies to address natural processes

7. What measurable objectives guide the efforts to stay ‘on-track’ towards achieving goals? 

8. Which of the several approaches to developing habitat priorities is most useful? 

9. Using the approach(es) described above, what are the priority actions designed to

implement the strategies? 

10. What are the primary monitoring programs to track progress? 

11. How will adaptive management be implemented to guide future activities?

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 6-23

Table 6-1. Steps in developing habitat strategies and actions for Oregon Coast coho salmon.

Questions Addressed Step ESU level Population level

1. What are the sciencebased goals for salmon 

recovery?

Identify habitat (including 

water quality) goals

Protect and restore the natural 

watershed processes and habitats that 

sustain coho salmon populations.

Biological and habitat goals for each 

independent population.

2. What are key life 

stages of Oregon Coast 

coho salmon? 

Identify key life stages Winter and summer rearing, estuary For most populations, same as ESUlevel.

3. Which watershed 

processes have been 

impaired enough to result 

in degraded salmon 

habitat? 

Identify key watershed 

processes and how they 

have changed

Key processes are hydrologic, sediment, floodplain, riparian, channel, biological, 

and estuarine. The most important changes include reduced quantity and quality 

of riparian habitat (complexity), instream wood, and beaver ponds; loss of 

floodplain connectivity & wetlands; increased water temps. 

4. What human activities 

(indirect and direct 

threats) and natural 

processes caused the 

important changes in OC 

coho salmon habitat?

Identify direct threats

Rural development and agriculture, 

stream cleaning, logging, development, 

levees, dikes, tidegates, mining, roads, 

reduction of beaver ponds, conversion 

of land to urban, water withdrawals.

Direct threats vary between 

populations depending on land 

management & natural baseline.

Identify indirect threats

Statutes, regulations, policies, economic factors that provide context for, and 

enable, direct threats, and ineffective implementation of current laws (e.g. CWA). 

Emerging indirect threats from actions that contribute to climate change.

Describe key natural 

processes Variable ocean survival, climate variability and change.

5. What are the linkages? Identify key linkages See Figure 6-2 

6. What are the basic 

and component 

strategies?

Develop basic habitat 

strategy

Two-pronged strategy: improve 

effectiveness of voluntary actions and 

regulatory backstops

Support agency and stakeholder

participants with technical and 

financial support.

Develop strategies for 

indirect threats

Improve habitat protections in voluntary 

and regulatory mechanisms

Engage local support for more 

effective voluntary protections.

Develop strategies for 

direct threats Support OCCCP voluntary actions 

Develop strategies for 

natural processes

Federal (NMFS) and state (ODFW) agencies continue to fund habitat monitoring 

(including climate change) and ocean prediction indices.

7. What measurable 

objectives guide the 

effort?

Develop (interim) 

objectives and new 

landscape-scale 

monitoring capabilities

Implement monitoring that can track efforts 

and measure net gain or loss of habitat in 

order to achieve adequately functioning 

habitat. Maintain or increase funding for 

monitoring programs. 

Adequate quantity and quality of 

key habitat features related to 

juvenile coho salmon rearing.

8. Which approach to 

developing habitat 

priorities is most useful?

Decide how priorities will 

be set 

Develop list of priorities based on potential ‘ecosystem uplift’ to support key life 

stages first, then apply economic and social factors.

9. What are the priority 

actions designed to 

implement the 

strategies?

Determine what should 

be priority actions based 

on the scientific approach

#1: Protect/ restore key habitat features

(see following section). 

# 2: Create more effective incentives for ag 

and timber sectors to protect salmon 

habitat. #3: Increase use of scientific 

principles in funding decisions. #4: Improve 

inter-agency cooperation, coordination. 

Complete approved strategic 

action plans at population level. 

10. What are the primary 

monitoring programs to 

track progress? 11. How 

will adaptive 

management be 

implemented to guide 

future activities?

Develop and implement 

monitoring programs and 

adaptive management. See Section 9

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 6-24

6.2.2 ESU-wide Strategy and Actions to Address Overutilization (Listing Factors 

B and D) 

Oregon Coast coho salmon are potentially subject to harvest in ocean and in-river fisheries.

Before ESA listing of the ESU, coho salmon were subjected to overharvest. Since the mid1990’s fishery impacts have been curtailed dramatically and continue to be managed under 

Amendment 13 of the Pacific Fishery Management Council’s Pacific Coast Salmon Fishery 

Management Plan. The primary goal of Amendment 13 is to assure that fishery-related impacts 

will not act as a significant impediment to the recovery of any population of coho salmon in the 

ESU.

6.2.2.1 Strategy to Address Overutilization through Harvest

In order to meet the criteria in Section 4.3, the recovery strategy for fishery harvest will be to 

continue to implement the Amendment 13 harvest matrix, as updated in the future. ODFW, 

NMFS and the Pacific Fishery Management Council will ensure ocean and freshwater fisheries 

are implemented in accordance with the prescribed criteria in Amendment and ESA approved 

Fisheries Management and Evaluation Plans (FMEPs). This includes the following:

• Fisheries managers provide the monitoring necessary to ensure that harvest limits as 

specified in Amendment 13 are not exceeded on an annual basis. If budget limitations 

preclude adequate monitoring, managers should reduce allowable harvest rates to ensure 

that limits are not exceeded. 

• Fisheries managers continue to improve the forecast skill relating to the challenging 

aspects of run predictions for purposes of harvest management.

• ODFW continues to implement the ESA-approved FMEPs for freshwater fisheries, 

including annual reporting and submitting proposed fisheries for the coming season to 

NMFS.

6.2.2.2 Harvest Management Actions

Listing Factor B1: Harvest Actions

B1-1 Continue abundance-based harvest management, adaptively managing to ensure harvest 

levels are according to the Amendment 13 harvest matrix, as amended in the future.

B1-2 Review, and amend as necessary, existing ‘full seeding’ criteria in the Amendment 13 

harvest matrix to better estimate whether habitat quality is sufficient for spawners to 

replace themselves when marine survival is low.

B1-3 Continue to refine and develop marine survival indices for Oregon Coast natural-origin 

coho salmon stocks for use in Amendment 13 harvest matrix criteria.

6.2.3 ESU-Level Strategy and Actions to Address Predation and Disease 

(Listing Factors C and D) 

Predation from introduced non-native fish (i.e., large and smallmouth bass, yellow perch, etc.)

continues to present a threat to Oregon Coast coho salmon. The ONCC TRT and BRT identified 

these species as the primary limiting factor in the Lakes Stratum. As water temperatures increase 

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 6-25

due to climate change, non-native fish predation is also emerging as a limiting factor in the 

warmer river reaches of the Umpqua basin and Coquille River.

Disease currently poses a lesser threat to ESU viability. Recent research by the BRT, however, 

suggests risk of disease may become a larger threat to the species in the future. Many streams 

inhabited by coho salmon are already approaching lethal temperatures and the fish may be at 

increased risk of disease if water temperatures rise further due to climate change. 

6.2.3.1 Strategy to Address Predation and Disease

Our recovery strategy includes reducing the impact of predation by non-native fish, birds, and 

marine mammals. In order to meet the criteria in Sections 4.2 and 4.3, NMFS will continue to 

work with ODFW, universities, and others to assemble the resources needed to monitor the status 

and trends of non-native fish, birds, and marine mammals that prey on listed salmon, and the 

impact they have on Oregon Coast coho salmon populations. When there is evidence of 

significant adverse impacts from predation on Oregon Coast coho salmon by non-native fish, 

birds, and marine mammals, we recommend ODFW consider options, including but not limited 

to increasing the sport fisheries on non-native species. Examples may include, Tenmile, 

Tahkenitch, and Siltcoos populations and bird and/or marine mammal hazing programs to reduce 

the threat to recovery (as has been done in the lower Umpqua River). 

The strategy also addresses potential threats. We recommend monitoring disease and parasitism 

in Oregon Coast coho salmon during the marine residence and summer-rearing portion of their 

life cycle to assess the impact of disease on population abundance and productivity. Monitoring 

should investigate the relationship between water temperature and infection rates to help inform 

future recovery actions as temperatures increase due to climate change. 

6.2.3.2 Predation and Disease Management Actions

Listing Factor C1: Predation and Disease Actions

C1-1 As resources allow, monitor to determine the rates of predation on Oregon Coast coho 

salmon by non-native fish (especially in the Tenmile, Tahkenitch, and Siltcoos 

populations; Umpqua basin, and Coquille River), birds, and marine mammals.

C1-2 Develop actions to reduce the impact of predation on Oregon Coast coho salmon by nonnative fish, birds, and marine mammals. Assess the role of over-water structures in the 

predator-prey interaction and, when appropriate, initiate a process to reduce the threats 

related to over-water structures and take other steps as necessary to decrease the 

distribution of non-native fish that occur within the range of Oregon Coast coho salmon 

habitat.

C1-3 As resources allow, monitor for disease and parasitism in all populations to determine the 

impact to Oregon Coast coho salmon abundance and productivity.

C1-4 If necessary, develop actions to reduce the occurrence of disease and parasitism in 

Oregon Coast coho salmon populations.

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 6-26

There is evidence that both pinniped and sea bird populations are increasing due to the success of 

federal protective measures. Due to this increase we will work with state and federal agencies to 

consider what research is need and practicable regarding the effects of pinniped and sea bird 

predation on coho salmon. 

6.2.4 ESU-level Strategy and Actions to Address Other Issues (Listing Factors E 

and D) 

Current hatchery practices pose little risk to Oregon Coast coho salmon. Steps taken by ODFW 

to adjust hatchery management have been successful in significantly reducing the number of 

hatchery fish on spawning grounds.

Climate change and changes in ocean conditions have emerged as critical concerns for Oregon 

Coast coho salmon. Climate changes in the Pacific Northwest are influencing water temperature, 

precipitation, wind patterns, ocean acidification, and sea-level height. The potential threat of a 

major earthquake on the Oregon Coast in the next 100 years is also a concern, particularly since 

such an earthquake could greatly affect the estuarine and lower elevation habitats where coho 

salmon rear. Steps taken to protect and restore freshwater and estuarine habitat conditions, as 

identified below and in Section 6.2.1, will help guard against the effects of these changes on 

Oregon Coast coho salmon survival and productivity.

6.2.4.1 Strategy to Address Other Issues: Hatcheries; Climate Change and Other 

Natural Factors

As part of our recovery strategy, and to achieve the goal for hatcheries in Section 4.2, NMFS will 

continue to implement the hatchery consultations with ODFW required by the ESA section 4 and 

conduct the assessments required by NEPA. We recommend the following:

• ODFW continue to operate coho salmon hatcheries at no more than the current (reduced) 

production level, and 

• NMFS, ODFW, and other interested organizations increase research on the ecological 

interactions between hatchery and natural-origin fish, including predation and 

competition for food, shelter, etc. This is relevant coast-wide, not just for Oregon Coast

coho salmon. 

Regarding threats due to natural causes and climate change, we recommend implementation of 

the following strategies:

• As a hedge against climate change, implement strategies and action that increase life 

history strategies within populations. This includes increasing not only the quality and 

quantity of habitats, but also the diversity of habitat types in streams and estuaries in 

order to increase the number of successful pathways that coho salmon have available.

Beechie et al. (2012) recommends that increasing floodplain connectivity, restoring 

stream flow regimes, and restoring incised channels to provide stream complexity 

(including through beaver reintroduction and installation of beaver dam analogues) are 

the actions most likely to ameliorate stream flow and temperature changes and increase 

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 6-27

habitat diversity and population resilience (Table 6-2).

• ODFW should continue to monitor habitat conditions and, if necessary, seek additional 

funding to support the work performed up to this point. 

• Continue to support actions that increase resilience to temperature increases (e.g.,

increasing shade and water quantity). NMFS will coordinate and collaborate with ODEQ, 

ODFW, USGS, U.S. Forest Service, and other agencies to ensure that water temperature 

monitoring is as well-coordinated and integrated as possible, to provide detailed, local, 

information about temperature-impaired reaches of rivers and streams that support coho 

salmon.

6.2.4.2 Hatchery and Climate Change Management Actions 

Listing Factor E1: Hatchery Management 

E1-1 Maintain current low levels of hatchery coho salmon production, as specified in HGMPs,

and increase use of native-origin broodstock to minimize genetic and ecological risks of 

hatchery coho on natural-origin coho salmon. 

E1-2 Manage production levels of hatchery Chinook salmon and steelhead, as specified in 

HGMPs, so that competition and predation risks do not increase on natural-origin coho 

salmon.

Listing Factor E2: Climate Change

E2-1 Monitor for increasing water temperatures (climate change) and ‘flashiness’ of streams 

(flashiness means that flow levels in streams increase rapidly after a rainfall, then return 

quickly to pre-rain conditions.)

E2-2 Use information from climate change risk analysis to identify at risk populations and 

habitat areas and to help prioritize actions.

E2-3 Implement actions that increase resilience to temperature increases (e.g., increase coldwater refugia by increasing shade and water quantity, etc.).

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 6-28

Table 6-2. Summary of habitat restoration types and their ability to ameliorate climate change effects on peak flows, 

low flows, stream temperature, or to increase salmonid population resiliency (Beechie et al. 2012). 

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 6-29

Table 6-3 summarizes potential voluntary, regulatory, and enforcement strategies for recovery of 

Oregon Coast coho salmon under the five listing factors. 

Table 6-3. Summary of Potential Recovery Strategies by Listing Factor.

Primary strategy(ies) for each listing factor

Listing Factors: Voluntary Efforts Regulatory Mechanisms Enforcement

A (and D)

The present or

threatened destruction,

modification, or

curtailment of the 

species’ habitat or

range

NMFS and ODFW Provide 

updated guidance to local groups 

on how to implement the best 

available science to prioritize and 

increase effectiveness of actions.

Support implementation of this 

plan and the OCCCP led by 

ODFW, ODA, ODF, NRCS, other 

agencies, watershed councils, 

SWCDs & others. 

NMFS work with other agencies 

to increase interagency 

collaboration, coordination, 

cooperation and ‘leveraging’ of 

agency authorities and resources 

to reduce threats.

Ensure continued funding for 

habitat restoration and monitoring. 

Ensure ‘regulatory 

backstop’ protections for

rural development, 

agricultural, forest and 

mining practices and other 

sources of water quality 

impairments.

Address emerging 

threats including possible 

changes in managing 

federal and state forests.

Work with federal, state 

and local enforcement 

agencies for more effective

implementation and 

enforcement of existing 

regulatory mechanisms, 

including CWA, CZARA 

including temperature and 

sediment impairments and 

404(d) permits.

B (and D) 

Over-utilization for

commercial, 

recreational, scientific,

or educational purposes

Minimize fishery impacts by 

promoting safe handling and 

release of coho salmon caught 

incidentally in other fisheries.

Employ fishing techniques to 

avoid/minimize catch of coho in 

fisheries closed to retention.

Ensure implementation 

of fisheries according to 

ESA approved 

Amendment 13 harvest 

matrix as updated. Review 

compliance annually in 

preseason fishery 

processes.

Ensure high compliance 

with fishing regulations in 

sport and commercial 

fisheries. Conduct increased 

enforcement patrols in 

fisheries where there are 

problems/violations.

C (and D) 

Disease or predation

Work with ODFW (e.g., invasive 

species coordinator) and others to 

educate citizens on how they can 

help avoid introduction of invasive 

plants and animals.

Support state 

regulations on invasive 

species; encourage more 

active management of 

non-native fish predators.

Support state enforcement 

of invasive species laws.

E (and D) 

Other natural or

human-made factors

affecting the species’

continued existence

Continue to use best available 

science to guide hatchery 

management.

Participate in educational 

programs including climate 

change.

Evaluate and approve 

HGMPs. Ensure 

implementation of 

programs by ODFW 

according to the ESAapproved HGMPs

Review hatchery fish 

releases, collection of brood

stock, and incidental 

handling of coho salmon at 

hatchery facilities for 

compliance with approved 

HGMPs.

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 6-30

6.3 Recovery Strategies and Actions at the Stratum Level (Listing 

Factors A and D) 

This section describes habitat strategies and actions for Oregon Coast coho salmon at the stratum

level, and will be complemented by the Recovery Implementation Strategy, containing more 

detailed activities at the population level, to be posted on the NOAA Fisheries West Coast 

Region website. Although the best available science supports the recovery actions as outlined 

here at the ESU and stratum levels, scientific uncertainty, ongoing uncertainties regarding 

developments in state and local regulations and land management, uncertainties in the 

relationships between voluntary and regulatory efforts, and continuous developments in the 

technology to support habitat monitoring, rendered it impracticable to recommend detailed 

activities at the population level in this document. We will develop and update this document in 

collaborate with local stakeholders, ODFW, and other agencies.

6.3.1 Strategies and Actions for the North Coast Stratum

Recovery Strategy for the North Coast Stratum

The basic recovery strategy for coho salmon populations in the North Coast Stratum aims to

protect freshwater and estuarine reaches that currently contain high quality habitat, and restore 

reaches with potential for additional high quality habitat. Actions will particularly focus on 

increasing the amount and quality of winter rearing habitat by improving stream and estuarine 

habitat complexity. Efforts are needed to increase amounts of large wood and pool habitat, and to 

connect side channels, wetlands, and other off-channel areas. Actions will also improve water 

quality, especially by reducing summer water temperatures and agricultural runoff in the 

Tillamook population area.

The following actions illustrate the types of actions that could be implemented to improve North 

Coast Stratum coho salmon populations and habitats. Other approaches could also be 

implemented to achieve the desired results. The actions will be further refined, sequenced, and 

scheduled in coordination with other agencies and local stakeholders.

Key Strategies and Potential Actions for the North Coast Stratum

• Implement and, as necessary, revise local regulatory mechanisms, voluntary and 

incentivized efforts to protect and restore watershed processes that promote winter and 

summer rearing habitats (e.g., wood recruitment, habitat complexity, floodplain 

connectivity, beaver pond habitat, increasing native riparian vegetation etc.). Examples of 

North Coast Stratum for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon

Independent Populations: Necanicum, Nehalem, Tillamook and Nestucca

Dependent Populations: Ecola, Arch Cape, Short Sands, Spring, Watseco, Netarts, Rover, Sand, and 

Neskowin

Current Status: Moderate level of certainty that the North Coast Stratum is sustainable 

Primary Limiting Factor: Stream complexity (all North Coast Stratum populations)

Secondary Limiting Factors: Water quality (Nehalem and Tillamook populations)

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 6-31

regulatory programs include the Oregon Agricultural Water Quality Management Act, 

Oregon Forest Practices Act, FEMA National Flood Insurance Program, and state beaver 

statutes and administrative rules. While increased statutory protections could strengthen 

recovery efforts, they may not be necessary if voluntary programs are shown to be 

effective in achieving ecosystem health, including water quality and increased habitat 

complexity. (See actions identified in Section 6.2.1.2, under Listing Factor A1, habitat 

actions at the ESU level.)

• Develop and approve scientifically credible, thorough Strategic Action Plans for the 

Necanicum, Nehalem, Tillamook, and Nestucca populations, consistent with ESU-level 

common framework.

• Implement the Strategic Action Plans to protect and restore ecosystem processes and 

functions and coho salmon habitats. Actions identified in SAPs will likely include 

activities such as restoring habitat capacity for rearing juvenile coho salmon by 

increasing large wood loading, beaver pond habitat, and wetland/ off-channel 

connectivity, and by increasing native riparian vegetation to provide bank stability and 

shade stream reaches.

• Collaborate with governmental and non-governmental organizations and others to 

identify, and implement, actions that will protect and restore watershed processes, 

provide stream complexity for juvenile rearing, connect side channels, wetland and offchannel habitats, and reduce fine sediment levels. 

• Coordinate with ODEQ, ODF, ODA, and others to improve water quality, especially 

water temperatures, to increase carrying capacity and provide high quality summer 

rearing habitat for juvenile coho salmon. 

• Collaborate with SWCDs, ODA, and others to increase effectiveness of current 

agricultural water quality area rules and plans in order to meet water quality goals in the 

Tillamook population area.

• As resources allow, develop and approve scientifically credible, thorough Strategic 

Action Plans for the Ecola, Arch Cape, Short Sands, Spring, Watseco, Netarts, Rover, 

Sand, and Neskowin populations, consistent with ESU-level common framework.

• Provide and support public outreach, education, and volunteer actions to protect and 

restore ecosystem process and functions, encourage beaver conservation and beaver dam 

analogues, and improve juvenile coho salmon rearing habitats.

• Improve wood recruitment to support long-term increases in habitat complexity by 

improving timber harvest activities and agricultural practices.

• Increase habitat complexity by increasing large wood, boulders, or other instream 

structure and conducting riparian planting projects.

• Improve floodplain connectivity by increasing beaver pond abundance and reducing or 

limiting development of channel-confining structures, including roads and infrastructure.

• Continue to implement weak stock management approach for fisheries according to 

Amendment 13 harvest matrix. Typically the North Coast Stratum populations are the 

weakest stocks in need to most protection under Amendment 13.

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 6-32

Priority Watershed Actions

Rural (including residential and agricultural) Lands 

1. Protect and restore riparian areas adjacent to stream channels using voluntary actions 

with regulatory backstops in place.

2. Plant and restore riparian vegetation adjacent to stream channels.

3. Increase habitat complexity by increasing large wood, boulders, or other instream 

structure, through improved ecosystem functions wherever possible.

4. Improve lateral connectivity between stream channels and adjacent wetlands and 

connectivity with floodplains.

Timber Lands

1. Increase protective management of riparian forests, including management that increases 

the sustainable natural recruitment of large wood into the rivers and streams through

voluntary programs or increased regulatory mechanisms.

2. Eliminate the construction of permanent new roads, unless constructed to relocate 

another permanent road that has greater impacts on Oregon Coast coho salmon habitat, 

and replace culverts where needed to comply with current guidelines.

3. Decommission roads where practicable.

4. Increase habitat complexity by increasing large wood, boulders, or other instream 

structure.

Secondary Watershed Actions

Beaver Management

1. Include strategies to increase beaver, beaver ponds, and beaver dam analogues in strategic 

action plans.

2. Seek agreements with state and federal agencies and others to pursue non-lethal means of 

beaver removal (see Section 6.2.1.2, A1-1.2 above). If necessary, revise regulatory 

mechanisms to prohibit killing of beaver within the range of Oregon Coast coho salmon 

unless property or infrastructure damage is occurring and only when all other options are 

exhausted.

3. Create a program to educate landowners, managers, policymakers and the public in 

general about the benefits of beaver ponds to the health of our ecosystems, with a focus on 

benefits to salmonids. Include opportunities to conserve and manage beaver through cost 

effective, non-lethal management practices (Pollock et al. 2015).

4. Implement the Beaver Restoration Guidebook (Pollock et al. 2015) to incorporate beaver,

beaver ponds, and beaver dam analogues into restoration actions.

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 6-33

Table 6-4. Habitat component specific actions to restore high quality coho salmon habitat in the North Coast 

Stratum.

Action ID Habitat 

component Strategy Action Area Priority

NCS-1 Tributaries

Improve water quality 

by improving water 

temperature

Improve water quality by 

improving stream shade

Tillamook and 

Nehalem 

Populations

High

NCS-2 Tributaries

Improve wood 

recruitment to support 

long-term increases in 

habitat complexity

Improve timber harvest 

activities (increased harvest 

buffers on private and state 

timberlands)

All Populations High

NCS-3 Tributaries Increase habitat 

complexity

Improve agricultural practices 

(reduce or disallow stream 

channel dredging in ESA-listed 

streams flowing through or 

adjacent to rural lands)

All Populations Medium

NCS-4 Tributaries Increase habitat 

complexity

Increase large wood, boulders, 

or other instream structure

All streams 

where coho 

salmon would 

benefit 

immediately

High

NCS-5 Tributaries Increase habitat 

complexity

Conduct riparian planting 

projects on streams that flow 

through or adjacent to 

agricultural lands to increase 

wood recruitment to streams

All Populations High

NCS-6 Off-Channel

Increase habitat 

complexity and 

connectivity to sidechannels

Increase large wood, boulders, 

or other instream structure All Populations Medium

NCS-7 Off-Channel 

and Wetlands

Increase habitat 

complexity and 

connectivity and 

access to alcoves, offchannel ponds, 

floodplains, and 

wetlands

Increase beaver pond 

abundance All Populations Medium

NCS-8 Wetlands

Improve direct and 

indirect wetland 

connectivity to streams

Reduce existing and limit 

development of channelconfining structures including

roads and infrastructure in the 

floodplain that disconnect 

wetlands from tributaries and 

mainstems

All Populations Medium

NCS-9 Mainstems

Improve wood 

recruitment to support 

long-term increases in 

habitat complexity

Support voluntary programs to 

increase stream complexity in 

rural areas.

All Populations Medium

NCS-10 Mainstems

Improve water quality 

by improving water 

temperature

Improve water quality by 

improving stream shade

Tillamook and 

Nehalem 

Populations

High

NCS-11 Mainstems

Improve water quality 

by improving water 

temperature

Improve water quality by 

improving stream shade All Populations Medium

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 6-34

Action ID Habitat 

component Strategy Action Area Priority

NCS-12 Mainstems

Improve water quality 

by improving water 

temperature

Improve water quality by 

improving instream flows

Tillamook 

Population High

NCS-13 Mainstems

Improve marginal and 

streambank habitat 

complexity

Increase large wood and 

marginal and streambank 

habitat structure

All streams 

where coho 

salmon would 

benefit 

immediately

High

NCS-14 Mainstems

Improve marginal and 

streambank habitat 

complexity

Increase large wood and 

marginal and streambank 

habitat structure

All Populations Medium

NCS-15 Mainstems

Improve wood 

recruitment to support 

long-term increases in 

habitat complexity

Improve timber harvest 

activities (increased harvest 

buffers on private industrial 

timberlands, reduce road 

densities on private and federal 

timberlands)

All streams 

where coho 

salmon would 

benefit 

immediately

High

NCS-16 Mainstems

Improve wood 

recruitment to support 

long-term increases in 

habitat complexity

Improve timber harvest 

activities (increased harvest 

buffers on private industrial 

timberlands, reduce road 

densities on private and federal 

timberlands)

All Populations Medium

NCS-17 Mainstems Increase habitat 

complexity

Improve gravel mining practices 

making them consistent with 

other streams in Oregon 

(Chetco River and Hunter 

Creek) by implementing 

standard best management 

practices to retain gravel bar 

form and function (per Federal 

Interagency Working Group 

2006). Explore upland 

rock/gravel sources for similar 

quality rock for quarrying, rather 

that removing from river bottom.

Tillamook and 

Nehalem 

Populations

Medium

NCS-18 Estuary

Increase access to 

sloughs, side channels, 

and floodplains

Reduce fish passage barriers to 

floodplains by managing 

tidegate presence and 

operations.

All Estuaries High

NCS-19 Estuary

Increase access to 

sloughs, side channels, 

and floodplains

Reduce fish passage barriers to 

floodplains by reducing or 

setting dikes back or completely 

removing tidegates and dikes 

where feasible.

All Estuaries High

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 6-35

6.3.2 Strategies and Actions for the Mid-Coast Stratum

Recovery Strategy for the Mid-Coast Stratum

The primary recovery strategy for the populations in the Mid-Coast Stratum is to protect current 

high quality summer and winter rearing habitat (including estuarine habitat) and strategically 

restore habitat quality in adjacent habitat for rearing and spawning (Beaver population). It

identifies priorities for restoration of ecological processes that will improve water quality, 

instream habitat complexity, and spawning conditions (Beaver population). Actions will improve 

water quality (temperature and dissolved oxygen), channel complexity, and available spawning 

gravel (Beaver population) by improving protection from adverse management practices, such as 

timber management, agricultural, urbanization, and beaver control. Development and 

implementation of a beaver pond conservation plan that includes reducing lethal control, 

improving public education and acceptance of beaver, and development of non-lethal 

management practices provides a long-term ecological need to address winter and summer 

rearing habitat for this stratum. In the estuary and low gradient freshwater reaches, increasing 

access to lowland habitats, such as side-channels, alcoves and floodplains improves high-flow 

refugia and productivity of the estuary for outmigrating smolts from the upstream basin reaches 

and provides for life-history diversity in the lower basins.

The following actions illustrate the types of actions that could be implemented to improve MidCoast Stratum coho salmon populations and habitats. Other approaches could also be 

implemented to achieve the desired results. The actions will be further refined, sequenced, and 

scheduled in coordination with other agencies and local stakeholders.

Key Strategies and Potential Actions for the Mid-Coast Stratum 

• Implement and, as necessary, revise local regulatory mechanisms, voluntary and 

incentivized efforts to protect and restore watershed processes that promote winter and 

summer rearing habitats (e.g., wood recruitment, habitat complexity, floodplain 

connectivity). Examples of regulatory programs include the Oregon Agricultural Water 

Quality Management Act, Oregon Forest Practices Act, FEMA National Flood Insurance 

Program ( recommendation A1-1.7), and state beaver statutes and administrative rules.

Mid-Coast Stratum for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon

Independent Populations: Salmon, Siletz, Yaquina, Beaver, Alsea, and Siuslaw

Dependent Populations: Devils Lake, Schoolhouse, Fogarty, Depoe Bay, Rocky, Spenser, Wade, Coal, 

Moolack, Big (near Yaquina), Theil, Big (near Alsea), Vinnie, Yachats, Cummins, Bob, Tenmile, Rock, Big (near 

Siuslaw), China, Cape and Berry 

Current Status: Moderate level of certainty that the Mid-Coast Stratum is sustainable

Primary Limiting Factor: Stream complexity (Salmon, Siletz, Yaquina, Alsea and Siuslaw populations), 

spawning gravel (Beaver population)

Secondary Limiting Factors: Stream complexity (Beaver population), water quality (Salmon, Siletz, Yaquina, 

Alsea, and Siuslaw populations)

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 6-36

Develop and approve scientifically credible, thorough Strategic Action Plans for the 

Salmon, Siletz, Yaquina, Beaver, Alsea, and Siuslaw populations, consistent with ESUlevel common framework. (See actions identified in Section 6.2.1.2, under Listing Factor 

A1, habitat actions at the ESU level.)

• Implement the Strategic Action Plans to protect and restore ecosystem processes and 

functions and coho salmon habitats. Actions identified in SAPs will likely include 

activities such as restoring habitat capacity for rearing juvenile coho salmon by 

increasing large wood loading, beaver pond habitat, and wetland/ off-channel 

connectivity, by increasing native riparian vegetation to provide bank stability and shade 

stream reaches, and improving available spawning habitat to support productivity 

(Beaver population).

• Collaborate with governmental and non-governmental organizations and others to 

identify, and implement, actions that will protect and restore watershed processes, 

provide stream complexity for juvenile rearing, connect side channels, wetland and offchannel habitats, and reduce fine sediment levels. 

• Coordinate with ODEQ, ODF, ODA, SWCDs, and others to improve water quality, 

especially water temperatures and fine sediment levels, increase carrying capacity, and 

provide high quality spawning and juvenile summer rearing habitat. 

• As resources allow, develop and approve scientifically credible, thorough Strategic 

Action Plans for the Devils Lake, Schoolhouse, Fogarty, Depoe Bay, Rocky, Spenser, 

Wade, Coal, Moolack, Big (near Yaquina), Theil, Big (near Alsea), Vinnie, Yachats, 

Cummins, Bob, Tenmile, Rock, Big (near Siuslaw), China, Cape, and Berry populations, 

consistent with ESU-level common framework.

• Provide and support public outreach, education, and volunteer actions to protect and 

restore ecosystem process and functions, encourage beaver conservation and beaver dam 

analogues, and improve juvenile coho salmon rearing habitats.

• Improve wood recruitment to support long-term increases in habitat complexity by 

improving timber harvest activities and agricultural practices.

• Increase habitat complexity by increasing large wood, boulders, or other instream 

structure and conducting riparian planting projects.

• Improve floodplain connectivity by increasing beaver pond abundance and reducing or 

limiting development of channel-confining structures, including roads and infrastructure.

Priority Watershed Actions

State and Private Timber Lands

1. Increase protection of riparian forests with no-touch buffer widths with voluntary 

programs or increased regulatory mechanisms.

2. Eliminate the construction of permanent new roads, unless constructed to relocate another 

permanent road which has greater impacts on Oregon Coast coho salmon habitat. 

3. Decommission roads where practicable.

4. Increase placement of large wood into stream channels.

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 6-37

Rural (including residential and agricultural) Lands 

1. Plant, restore, and protect riparian areas adjacent to stream channels using voluntary 

actions with regulatory backstops in place.

2. Develop and implement recommended riparian buffer vegetation and widths (e.g.,

ODA’s Streamside Vegetation Assessment Tool) (ODA 2015) for streams that flow 

through rural lands that will improve and protect water quality.

3. Improve lateral connectivity from the stream channels to adjacent wetlands.

4. Conserve water usage to allow more instream water.

Federal Lands

1. Maintain a strong aquatic conservation strategy of some form within future management 

plans that protects ecological processes that form high quality coho salmon habitat.

2. Improve the transportation network that includes reducing the road network, minimizing 

the hydrologic connection of the roads to streams, reducing road-related fish passage 

barriers, and minimizing any new road development, especially in riparian zones. 

Secondary Watershed Actions

Beaver Management

1. Include strategies to increase beaver, beaver ponds, and beaver dam analogues in 

strategic action plans.

2. Seek agreements with state and federal agencies and others to pursue non-lethal means of 

beaver removal (see Section 6.2.1.2, A1-1.2 above). If necessary, revise regulatory 

mechanisms to prohibit killing of beaver within the range of Oregon Coast coho salmon 

unless property or infrastructure damage is occurring and only when all other options are 

exhausted.

3. Create a program to educate landowners, managers, policymakers and the public in 

general about the benefits of beaver ponds to the health of our ecosystems, with a focus 

on benefits to salmonids. Include opportunities to conserve and manage beaver through 

cost effective, non-lethal management practices (Pollock et al. 2015).

4. Implement the Beaver Restoration Guidebook (Pollock et al. 2015) to incorporate beaver,

beaver ponds, and beaver dam analogues into restoration actions.

Fish Passage Access

1. Continue efforts to improve fish passage at dams, culverts, and other identified fish 

passage barriers in all populations. Assess remaining fish passage barriers and develop 

and implementation strategy and schedule.

2. Develop an estuary lowlands restoration strategy that considers improved access to 

historical floodplains through tidegate elimination, management, and operations; levee 

and dike removal; and overwater structure modifications in the Yaquina, Alsea, Siletz, 

and Siuslaw Rivers and Beaver Creek estuaries. 

3. Complete a tidegate and floodplain management strategy in the Yaquina, Siuslaw, and 

Siletz River estuaries.

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 6-38

Estuaries

1. Update estuary assessments of tidal habitats important for coho salmon rearing and 

development to assess status and guide future development and implementation of 

restoration activities. 

2. Assess the contribution of pollutants associated with urbanization and industrialization to 

degraded water and substrate quality in the Siletz, Yaquina, Alsea, and Siuslaw River 

estuaries. 

Table 6-5. Habitat component specific actions to restore high quality coho salmon habitat in the Mid-Coast Stratum.

Action 

ID

Habitat 

component Strategy Action Area Priority

MCS-1 Tributaries

Improve wood 

recruitment to support 

long-term increases in 

habitat complexity

Improve timber harvest activities 

(increased harvest buffers on 

private industrial timberlands, 

reduce road densities on private 

and federal timberlands)

All populations High

MCS-2 Tributaries

Improve wood 

recruitment to support 

long-term increases in 

habitat complexity

Improve agricultural practices 

(grazing and hay production buffers 

on agricultural land adjacent to 

ESA-listed streams)

All populations High

MCS-3 Tributaries Increase habitat 

complexity

Improve agricultural practices 

(disallow stream channel dredging 

in ESA-listed streams flowing 

through or adjacent to ag lands)

Siuslaw 

Population High

MCS-4 Tributaries Increase habitat 

complexity

Improve agricultural practices 

(disallow stream channel dredging 

in ESA-listed streams flowing 

through or adjacent to ag lands)

All populations High

MCS-5 Tributaries Increase habitat 

complexity

Increase large wood, boulders, or 

other instream structure All populations High

MCS-6 Tributaries Increase habitat 

complexity

Increase large wood, boulders, or 

other instream structure

All streams where 

coho salmon 

would benefit 

immediately

High

MCS-7 Tributaries Increase habitat 

complexity

Conduct riparian planting projects 

on streams that flow through or 

adjacent to ag lands to increase 

wood recruitment to streams

All populations High

MCS-8 Tributaries Increase habitat 

complexity

Conduct riparian planting projects 

on streams that flow through or 

adjacent to ag lands to increase 

wood recruitment to streams

All streams where 

coho salmon 

would benefit 

immediately

High

MCS-9 Tributaries Increase available 

spawning habitat

Increase instream complexity by 

placing large wood, boulders, or 

other instream structure to create 

and retain spawning gravels

Beaver Creek 

population High

MCS-10 Tributaries Increase available 

spawning habitat

Increase instream complexity by 

placing large wood, boulders, or 

other instream structure to create 

and retain spawning gravels

Salmon, Siletz, 

Yaquina, Alsea, 

Siuslaw 

populations

Medium

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 6-39

Action 

ID

Habitat 

component Strategy Action Area Priority

MCS-11 Tributaries Improve water quality

Develop water conservation 

strategies for municipal and 

irrigation water withdrawals to 

improve water quality that is 

sufficient for salmonid rearing and 

spawning

Siletz, Salmon, 

Yaquina, Alsea, 

Siuslaw 

populations

High

MCS-12 Tributaries Improve water quality

Improve water quality by improving 

stream shade, and substrate 

retention.

Siletz, Salmon, 

Yaquina, Alsea, 

Siuslaw 

populations 

High

MCS-13 Tributaries Improve water quality

Develop water conservation 

strategies for municipal and

irrigation water withdrawals to 

improve water quality that is 

sufficient for salmonid rearing and 

spawning

Beaver 

population Medium

MCS-14 Tributaries Improve water quality

Improve water quality by improving 

stream shade, and substrate 

retention.

Beaver 

population Medium

MCS-15 Off-Channel

Increase habitat 

complexity and 

connectivity to sidechannels

Increase large wood, boulders, or 

other instream structure All populations High

MCS-16 Off-Channel

Increase habitat 

complexity and 

connectivity to sidechannels

Increase large wood, boulders, or 

other instream structure 

All streams where 

coho would 

benefit 

immediately

High

MCS-17

Off-Channel 

and 

Wetlands

Increase habitat 

complexity and 

connectivity and access 

to alcoves, off-channel 

ponds, floodplains, and 

wetlands

Increase beaver pond abundance All populations High

MCS-18

Off-Channel 

and 

Wetlands

Increase habitat 

complexity and 

connectivity and access 

to alcoves, off-channel 

ponds, floodplains, and 

wetlands

Increase beaver pond abundance

All streams where 

coho will benefit 

immediately

High

MCS-19 Wetlands

Improve direct and 

indirect wetland 

connectivity to streams

Reduce existing and limit 

development of channel-confining 

structures including roads and 

infrastructure in the floodplain that 

disconnect wetlands from tributaries 

and mainstems

All streams where 

coho salmon 

would benefit 

immediately

High

MCS-20 Wetlands

Improve direct and 

indirect wetland 

connectivity to streams

Reduce existing and limit 

development of channel-confining 

structures including roads and 

infrastructure in the floodplain that 

disconnect wetlands from tributaries 

and mainstems

All populations High

MCS-21 Mainstems Improve wood 

recruitment to support 

Improve timber harvest activities 

(increased harvest buffers on All populations High

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 6-40

Action 

ID

Habitat 

component Strategy Action Area Priority

long-term increases in 

habitat complexity

private industrial timberlands, 

reduce road densities on private 

and federal timberlands)

MCS-22 Mainstems

Improve wood 

recruitment to support 

long-term increases in 

habitat complexity

Improve timber harvest activities 

(increased harvest buffers on 

private industrial timberlands, 

reduce road densities on private 

and federal timberlands)

All streams where 

coho salmon 

would benefit 

immediately

High

MCS-23 Mainstems

Improve wood 

recruitment to support 

long-term increases in 

habitat complexity

Improve state agricultural practices 

(grazing and hay production buffers 

on ag land adjacent to ESA-listed 

streams)

All populations High

MCS-24 Mainstems Increase habitat 

complexity

Improve state agricultural practices 

(disallow stream channel dredging 

in ESA-listed streams flowing 

through or adjacent to ag lands)

Siuslaw 

population High

MCS-25 Mainstems

Improve marginal and 

streambank habitat 

complexity

Increase large wood and marginal 

and streambank habitat structure All populations High

MCS-26 Mainstems

Improve marginal and 

streambank habitat 

complexity

Increase large wood and marginal 

and streambank habitat structure

All streams where 

coho salmon 

would benefit 

immediately

High

MCS-27 Mainstems Improve water quality

Develop water conservation 

strategies for municipal and 

irrigation water withdrawals to 

improve water temperature and 

dissolved oxygen levels sufficient 

for salmonid rearing and spawning

Salmon, Siletz, 

Yaquina, Alsea, 

Siuslaw 

populations

High

MCS-28 Mainstems Improve water quality

Improve water quality by improving 

stream shade, and substrate 

retention.

Salmon, Siletz, 

Yaquina, Alsea, 

Siuslaw 

populations

High

MCS-29 Mainstems Improve water quality

Develop water conservation 

strategies for municipal and 

irrigation water withdrawals to 

improve water quality that is 

sufficient for salmonid rearing and 

spawning

Beaver 

population Medium

MCS-30 Mainstem Improve water quality

Improve water quality by improving 

stream shade, and substrate 

retention.

Beaver 

population Medium

MCS-31 Mainstems Increase habitat 

complexity

Conduct riparian planting projects 

on streams that flow through or 

adjacent to ag lands to increase 

wood recruitment to streams

All populations High

MCS-32 Mainstems Increase habitat 

complexity

Conduct riparian planting projects 

on streams that flow through or 

adjacent to ag lands to increase 

wood recruitment to streams

All streams where 

coho salmon 

would benefit 

immediately

High

MCS-33 Estuary

Increase access to 

sloughs, side channels, 

and floodplains

Reduce fish passage barriers to 

floodplains by managing tidegate 

presence and operations.

Salmon, Siletz, 

Yaquina, Alsea High

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 6-41

Action 

ID

Habitat 

component Strategy Action Area Priority

and Siuslaw 

estuaries

MCS-34 Estuary

Increase access to 

sloughs, side channels, 

and floodplains

Reduce fish passage barriers to 

floodplains by reducing or setting 

dikes back.

Salmon, Siletz, 

Yaquina, Alsea 

and Siuslaw 

estuaries

High

MCS-35 Estuary Improve water quality

Identify sources of water pollution 

and develop strategies to reduce 

pollutants in water discharges

Salmon, Siletz, 

Yaquina, Alsea 

and Siuslaw 

estuaries

High

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 6-42

6.3.3 Strategies and Actions for the Lakes Stratum

Recovery Strategy for the Lakes Stratum

NMFS recognizes that the lakes stratum has consistently been the most sustainable within the 

ESU. The primary strategy to ensure the continued health of the populations in the Lakes 

Stratum is to reduce summer predation rates by non-indigenous fish species. Non-indigenous fish 

predation of juvenile coho salmon occurs primarily during summer rearing in the lake 

populations reducing survival rates to the smolt stage. Consequently, the summer lake rearing 

life stage of Oregon Coast coho salmon in the Lakes populations has been eliminated. However, 

the lakes are continuing to function as important habitat for Oregon Coast coho salmon smolts 

during the winter months as non-indigenous fish are inactive during cold water temperatures.

The secondary recovery strategy for the populations in the Lakes Stratum is to protect current 

high quality summer and winter rearing habitat in the tributaries of the lakes, and strategically 

restore the quality of adjacent habitat. It identifies priorities for restoration of ecological 

processes that will improve water quantity, water quality, connectivity of stream adjacent 

wetlands, and instream habitat complexity. It improves water temperature, and channel 

complexity by improving protection from adverse management practices, such as timber 

management, agricultural, and beaver control.

Additionally, the lakes are showing very poor water quality from heavy nutrient loading, high 

water temperatures, and sediment loading, especially in the arms of the lake. The actions can 

address these factors by restoring ecological processes in the headwaters of the lakes mentioned 

above, improving and maintaining streamflow, and developing improved environmental 

practices of lake front owners.

The following actions illustrate the types of actions that could be implemented to improve Lake 

Stratum coho salmon populations and habitats. Other approaches could also be implemented to 

achieve the desired results. The actions will be further refined, sequenced, and scheduled in 

coordination with other agencies and local stakeholders.

Key Strategies and Potential Actions for the Lakes Stratum

• Coordinate with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife to reduce predation rates by 

reducing populations of non-indigenous fish in Siltcoos, Tahkenitch, Tenmile, and 

Lakes Stratum for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon

Independent Populations: Siltcoos, Tahkenitch, and Tenmile

Dependent Populations: Sutton (Mercer Lake)

Current Status: High level of certainty that the Lakes Stratum and the Siltcoos, Tahkenitch, and 

Tenmile coho salmon populations are sustainable.

Primary Limiting Factor: Non-indigenous fish species

Secondary Limiting Factors: Stream complexity (loss of rearing habitat) and water quality

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 6-43

Mercer Lakes. Exploitation rates of non-indigenous fish will need to be increased to such 

a level that summer rearing of juvenile Oregon Coast coho salmon is restored. 

• Implement and, as necessary, revise local regulatory mechanisms, voluntary and 

incentivized efforts to protect and restore watershed processes that promote winter and 

summer rearing habitats (e.g., wood recruitment, habitat complexity, floodplain 

connectivity). Examples of regulatory programs include the Oregon Agricultural Water 

Quality Management Act, Oregon Forest Practices Act, FEMA National Flood Insurance 

Program, and state beaver statutes and administrative rules. Develop and approve 

scientifically credible, thorough Strategic Action Plans for the Siltcoos, Tahkenitch, and 

Tenmile Lake populations, consistent with ESU-level common framework. (See actions 

identified in Section 6.2.1.2, under Listing Factor A1, habitat actions at the ESU level.) 

• Implement the Strategic Action Plans to protect and restore ecosystem processes and 

functions of coho salmon habitats. Actions identified in SAPs will likely include 

activities such as restoring the summer lake rearing life stage of the Oregon Coast coho 

salmon life history, habitat capacity for rearing juvenile coho salmon by increasing large 

wood loading, beaver pond habitat, and wetland/ off-channel connectivity; and by 

increasing native riparian vegetation to shade stream reaches during warm summer 

months and provide long-term wood recruitment.

• Collaborate with governmental, non-governmental, and other organizations to identify 

and implement actions that will protect and restore watershed processes, provide stream 

complexity for juvenile rearing, increase shading to reduce stream temperatures, and 

connect wetland and off-channel habitats. 

• Coordinate with ODEQ, ODF, ODA, SWCDs, Lake Front Owners Association, 

Watershed Councils, and others to identify and implement actions that will decrease 

sedimentation and nutrient loading into Siltcoos and Tenmile Lake. Sedimentation of 

lakes has been caused by poor road management and road density, increased landslides, 

and poor riparian areas lacking adequate vegetative no-touch buffers.

• Provide and support public outreach, education, and volunteer actions to protect and 

restore ecosystem process and functions, encourage beaver conservation and beaver dam 

analogues, and improve juvenile coho salmon rearing habitats.

• As resources allow, develop and approve scientifically credible, thorough Strategic 

Action Plans for the Mercer Lake Population, consistent with ESU-level common 

framework. 

• Improve wood recruitment to support long-term increases in habitat complexity by 

improving timber harvest activities and agricultural practices.

• Increase habitat complexity by increasing large wood, boulders, or other instream 

structure and conducting riparian planting projects.

• Improve floodplain connectivity by increasing beaver pond abundance and reducing or 

limiting development of channel-confining structures, including roads and infrastructure. 

Estuaries

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 6-44

• Update estuary assessments of tidal habitats important for coho salmon rearing and 

development to assess status and guide future development and implementation of 

restoration activities. 

Priority Watershed Actions

Non-indigenous Fish Species

1. Organize an interagency team to evaluate and identify non-indigenous fish removal 

strategies:

a. Evaluate the use of all potential techniques for complete removal.

b. Evaluate long-term electrofishing methods.

c. Consider a bounty program to remove warm-water fish in the lake, commercial 

fisheries, volunteer tournaments with prizes, eliminating bag limits, or a 

combination of all. (Note: Implementing regulations to eliminate bag limits by 

themselves are not effective at removing enough non-indigenous fish to provide 

any meaningful summer rearing potential for juvenile Oregon Coast coho salmon 

in the lakes.)

2. Monitor non-indigenous fish species in the lake for ongoing predation and competition 

with Oregon Coast coho salmon.

a. Assess summer versus winter predation and survival rates of Oregon Coast coho 

salmon juveniles.

b. Assess the role of over-water structures in the predator-prey interaction.

State and Private Timber Lands

1. Increase protection of riparian forests with no-touch buffer widths. 

2. Increase placement of large wood into stream channels.

3. Eliminate the construction of permanent new roads, unless constructed to relocate another 

permanent road that has greater impacts on Oregon Coast coho salmon habitat. 

4. Decommission roads where practicable with emphasis on roads adjacent to riparian areas.

5. Identify landslide prone areas and avoid road building or heavy timber harvest in these 

risk avoidance areas.

6. Develop conservation plans for state and private forest lands.

Rural (including residential and agricultural) Lands 

1. Plant, restore and protect riparian areas adjacent to stream channels using voluntary 

actions with regulatory backstops in place. Provide minimum no-touch buffers on 

streams.

2. Improve lateral connectivity from the stream channels to adjacent wetlands.

3. Conserve water usage to allow more instream water.

Private Lake Front Lands

1. Improve septic drainage areas such to eliminate chemical contamination with the Lakes. 

2. Evaluate the opportunity to install community sewage treatment systems.

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 6-45

3. Plant, restore and protect riparian areas adjacent to the lake. 

4. Avoid fertilization or other chemicals from reaching the lake. 

5. Do not remove downed wood from the lake.

6. Implement ODFW dock guidelines for all dock repairs, replacements, and new 

construction. 

Secondary Watershed Actions

Beaver Management

1. Include strategies to increase beaver, beaver ponds, and beaver dam analogues in 

strategic action plans.

2. Seek agreements with state and federal agencies and others to pursue non-lethal means of 

beaver removal (see Section 6.2.1.2, A1-1.2 above). If necessary, revise regulatory 

mechanisms to prohibit killing beaver within the range of Oregon Coast coho salmon 

unless property or infrastructure damage is occurring and only when all other options are 

exhausted.

3. Create a program to educate landowners, managers, policymakers, and the public in 

general about the benefits of beaver ponds to the health of our ecosystems, with a focus 

on benefits to salmonids. Include opportunities to conserve and manage beaver through 

cost effective, non-lethal management practices (Pollock et al. 2015).

4. Implement the Beaver Restoration Guidebook (Pollock et al. 2015) to incorporate beaver,

beaver ponds, and beaver dam analogues into restoration actions. Develop a pilot 

demonstration effort, considering the lands on the Elliott State Forest within the Tenmile 

Lake populations first, and implement this integrated restoration strategy.

Federal Lands

• Protect the estuary from any recreational use encroachment.

• Manage recreational off-road vehicle for no entry into riparian areas.

• Seek fish passage into Clear Lake for Oregon Coast coho salmon (partnering with ODOT

and the City of Reedsport).

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 6-46

Table 6-6. Habitat component specific actions to restore high quality coho salmon habitat in the Lakes Stratum.

Action 

ID

Habitat 

component Strategy Action Area Priority

LS-1 Lakes Remove non-indigenous 

species

Evaluate all potential techniques to 

remove desired species

Tenmile, Siltcoos, 

Tahkenitch, and 

Mercer Lakes

1

LS-2 Lakes Reduce sewer from 

entering lakes Work with DEQ for specifications

Tenmile, Siltcoos, 

Tahkenitch, and 

Mercer Lakes

Medium

LS-3 Lakes Reduce predation in lakes

Placement of grating on docks and 

overwater structures. Reduce the 

amount of structures and pilings.

Tenmile, Siltcoos, 

Tahkenitch, and 

Mercer Lakes

Medium

LS-4 Tributaries

Improve wood recruitment 

to support long-term 

increases in habitat 

complexity

Improve timber harvest activities 

(increased harvest buffers on 

private industrial timberlands, 

reduce road densities on private 

and state timberlands)

All streams where 

coho salmon 

would benefit 

immediately

High

LS-5 Tributaries

Improve wood recruitment 

to support long-term 

increases in habitat 

complexity

Improve state agricultural practices 

(grazing and hay production buffers 

on ag land adjacent to ESA-listed 

streams)

All streams where 

coho salmon 

would benefit 

immediately

High

LS-6 Tributaries Improve water quality

Improve water quality by improving 

channel complexity, stream shade, 

and substrate retention.

Population wide High

LS-7 Tributaries Increase habitat complexity Increase large wood, boulders, or 

other instream structure

All streams where 

coho salmon 

would benefit 

immediately

High

LS-8 Tributaries Increase habitat complexity

Conduct riparian planting projects 

on streams that flow through or 

adjacent to ag lands to increase 

wood recruitment to streams

All streams where 

coho salmon 

would benefit 

immediately; 

High

LS-9 Tributaries Increase habitat complexity

Improve state agricultural practices 

(disallow stream channel dredging 

in ESA-listed streams flowing 

through or adjacent to ag lands)

All streams where 

coho salmon 

would benefit 

immediately;

High

LS-10 Off-Channel

Increase habitat complexity 

and connectivity to sidechannels

Increase large wood, boulders, or 

other instream structure 

All streams where 

coho would benefit 

immediately

High

LS-11 Off-Channel 

Increase habitat complexity 

and connectivity and 

access to alcoves, offchannel ponds, floodplains, 

and wetlands

Increase beaver pond abundance

All streams where 

coho salmon 

would benefit 

immediately

High

LS-12 Mainstem Improve water quality

Improve water quality by improving 

channel complexity, stream shade, 

and substrate retention.

Population wide High

LS-13 Mainstem Improve instream flows

Develop water conservation 

strategies on the upslope 

agricultural areas with the intent of 

transferring conserved water to 

instream flows.

Population wide Medium

LS-14 Mainstem

Protect the mainstem 

below the Lakes from any 

encroachment

Manage recreational off-road 

vehicle for no entry into riparian 

areas.

Estuary wide Medium

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 6-47

Action 

ID

Habitat 

component Strategy Action Area Priority

LS-15 Wetlands

Increase habitat complexity 

and connectivity and 

access to alcoves, offchannel ponds, floodplains, 

and wetlands

Increase beaver pond abundance

All streams where 

coho salmon 

would benefit 

immediately

High

LS-16 Wetlands

Improve direct and indirect 

wetland connectivity to 

streams

Reduce existing and limit 

development of channel-confining 

structures including roads and 

infrastructure in the floodplain that 

disconnect wetlands from 

tributaries and mainstems

All streams where 

coho salmon 

would benefit 

immediately

Medium

LS-17 Estuary Protect the estuary from 

any encroachment

Manage recreational off-road 

vehicle for no entry into estuarine 

areas.

Estuary wide Medium

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 6-48

6.3.4 Strategies and Actions for the Umpqua Stratum

Recovery Strategy for the Umpqua Stratum

The primary recovery strategy for the populations in the Umpqua Stratum is to protect current 

high quality summer and winter rearing habitat and strategically restore habitat quality in 

adjacent habitat. It identifies priorities for restoration of ecological processes to improve water 

quantity, water quality, and instream and estuarine habitat complexity. Collaborative actions also 

aim to improve instream flow, water temperature, and channel complexity through protection 

from adverse management practices, such as timber management, agricultural, and beaver 

control. An assessment of instream flows and development and implementation of a strategic 

instream flow restoration plan is essential to recovery of this stratum. Development and 

implementation of a beaver pond conservation plan that includes reducing lethal control, 

improving public education and acceptance of beaver, and development of non-lethal 

management practices provides a long-term ecological need to address winter- and summerrearing habitat for this stratum. In the estuary, increasing access to lowland habitats, such as sidechannels, alcoves and floodplains improves high-flow refugia and productivity of the estuary for 

outmigrating smolts from the upstream basin and provides for life-history diversity in the lower 

basin.

The following actions illustrate the types of actions that could be implemented to improve 

Umpqua Stratum coho salmon populations and habitats. Other approaches could also be 

implemented to achieve the desired results. The actions will be further refined, sequenced, and 

scheduled in coordination with other agencies and local stakeholders.

Key Strategies and Potential Actions for the Umpqua Stratum

• Assess instream flow limitations and opportunities for water use conservation and 

instream flow increases, especially in the South and Middle Umpqua populations.

• Implement and, as necessary, revise local regulatory mechanisms, voluntary and 

incentivized efforts to protect and restore watershed processes that promote winter and 

summer rearing habitats (e.g., wood recruitment, habitat complexity, floodplain 

connectivity). Examples of regulatory programs include the Oregon Agricultural Water 

Quality Management Act, Oregon Forest Practices Act, FEMA National Flood Insurance 

Program, and state beaver statutes and administrative rules. Encourage local 

organizations to work with state and federal agencies to develop and approve 

scientifically credible, thorough Strategic Action Plans for the Lower, Middle, North, and 

Umpqua Stratum for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon

Independent Populations: Lower Umpqua, Middle Umpqua, North Umpqua and South Umpqua

Current Status: Moderate level of certainty that the Umpqua Stratum is sustainable 

Primary Limiting Factor: Stream complexity (Lower Umpqua, North Umpqua), water quantity and quality 

(Middle Umpqua and South Umpqua populations).

Secondary Limiting Factors: Water quality (Lower Umpqua) Water quality and quantity (North Umpqua); 

stream complexity (Middle and South Umpqua populations)

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 6-49

South Umpqua populations, consistent with ESU-level common framework. (See action 

identified in Section 6.2.1.2 under Listing Factor A1, habitat actions at the ESU level.)

• Implement the Strategic Action Plans to protect and restore ecosystem processes and 

functions and coho salmon habitats. Actions identified in SAPs will likely include 

activities such as restoring habitat capacity for rearing juvenile coho salmon by 

increasing large wood loading, beaver pond habitat, and wetland/ off-channel 

connectivity, and by increasing native riparian vegetation to shade stream reaches during 

warm summer months.

• Collaborate with governmental and non-governmental organizations and others to 

identify, and implement, actions that will protect and restore watershed processes, 

provide stream complexity for juvenile rearing, increase shading to reduce stream 

temperatures, and connect wetland and off-channel habitats. 

• Coordinate with ODEQ, ODF, ODA, SWCDs, and others to improve water quality, 

especially water temperatures, to increase carrying capacity and provide high quality 

summer rearing habitat for juvenile coho salmon. 

• Provide and support public outreach, education and volunteer actions to protect and 

restore ecosystem process and functions, encourage beaver conservation and beaver dam 

analogues, and improve juvenile coho salmon rearing habitats.

• Reduce predation rates by continuing to reduce populations of non-native fish in the 

lower Umpqua River. 

• Monitor and control predation, disease, aquatic invasive species, and competition.

• Improve wood recruitment to support long-term increases in habitat complexity by 

improving timber harvest activities and agricultural practices.

• Increase habitat complexity by increasing large wood, boulders, or other instream 

structure and conducting riparian planting projects.

• Improve floodplain connectivity by increasing beaver pond abundance and reducing or 

limiting development of channel-confining structures, including roads and infrastructure.

Estuaries

• Update estuary assessments of tidal habitats important for coho salmon rearing and 

development to assess status and guide future development and implementation of 

restoration activities. 

Priority Watershed Actions

Instream Flows

1. Organize an interagency stream flow assessment team to evaluate and identify:

a. Refugia areas that have adequate stream flow, water temperature, and riparian 

protections to support coho salmon.

b. Existing stream flow needs.

c. A strategy to address flow restoration, which will protect existing refugia, expand 

refugia to adjacent reaches, and provide a connection to a larger network of 

refugia areas.

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 6-50

2. Assess the potential success of a pilot program and implement the water conservation and 

instream flow program in the South or Middle Umpqua populations first. Develop a pilot 

flow restoration effort to implement the protection and restoration strategy and test the 

program feasibility in the South or Middle Umpqua populations.

State and Private Timber Lands

1. Increase protection of riparian forests with no-touch buffer widths with voluntary 

programs or increased regulatory mechanisms.

2. Eliminate the construction of permanent new roads, unless constructed to relocate another 

permanent road which has greater impacts on Oregon Coast coho salmon habitat. 

3. Decommission roads where practicable.

4. Increase placement of large wood into stream channels.

Rural (including residential and agricultural) Lands

1. Plant, restore, and protect riparian areas adjacent to stream channels using voluntary 

actions with regulatory backstops in place.

2. Improve lateral connectivity from the stream channels to adjacent wetlands.

3. Conserve water usage to allow more instream water.

Federal Lands

1. Maintain a strong aquatic conservation strategy of some form within future management 

plans that protects ecological processes that form high quality coho salmon habitat.

2. Improve the transportation network that includes reducing the road network, minimizing 

the hydrologic connection of the roads to streams, reducing road related fish passage 

barriers, and minimizing any new road development, especially in riparian zones. 

Secondary Watershed Actions

Beaver Management

1. Include strategies to increase beaver, beaver ponds, and beaver dam analogues in 

strategic action plans.

2. Seek agreements with state and federal agencies and others to pursue non-lethal means of 

beaver removal (see Section 6.2.1.2, A1-12 above). If necessary, revise regulatory 

mechanisms to prohibit killing beaver within the range of Oregon Coast coho salmon 

unless property or infrastructure damage is occurring and only when all other options are 

exhausted.

3. Create a program to educate landowners, managers, policymakers and the public in 

general about the benefits of beaver ponds to the health of our ecosystems, with a focus 

on benefits to salmonids. Include opportunities to conserve and manage beaver through 

cost effective, non-lethal management practices (Pollock et al. 2015).

4. Implement the Beaver Restoration Guidebook (Pollock et al. 2015) to incorporate beaver,

beaver ponds, and beaver dam analogues into restoration actions. Develop a pilot 

demonstration effort, considering the Elk Creek watershed within the South Umpqua 

population first, and implement this integrated restoration strategy.

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 6-51

Fish Passage Access

1. Continue efforts to improve fish passage at dams, culverts, and other identified fish

passage barriers. Assess remaining fish passage barriers and develop and implementation 

strategy and schedule.

2. Develop an estuary lowlands restoration strategy that considers improved access to 

historical floodplains through tidegate elimination, management, and operations; levee 

removal; and overwater structure modifications. 

3. Complete a tidegate and floodplain management strategy in the Lower Umpqua and 

Smith River estuary.

Table 6-7. Habitat component specific actions to restore high quality coho salmon habitat in the Umpqua Stratum.

Action 

ID

Habitat 

component Strategy Action Area Priority

US-1 Tributaries Improve instream flows

Develop water conservation 

strategies on the upslope 

agricultural areas with the intent of 

transferring conserved water to 

instream flows.

Immediate focus on 

identified areas with 

the highest water 

diversion.

High

US-2 Tributaries Improve instream flows

Develop water conservation 

strategies on the upslope 

agricultural areas with the intent of 

transferring conserved water to 

instream flows.

All populations Medium

US-3 Tributaries Improve water quality

Improve water quality by improving 

instream flows, channel 

complexity, stream shade, and 

substrate retention.

All populations High

US-4 Tributaries

Improve wood 

recruitment to support 

long-term increases in 

habitat complexity

Improve timber harvest activities 

(increased harvest buffers on 

private industrial timberlands, 

reduce road densities on private 

and federal timberlands)

All populations High

US-5 Tributaries

Improve wood 

recruitment to support 

long-term increases in 

habitat complexity

Improve agricultural practices (for 

example grazing and hay 

production buffers on ag land 

adjacent to ESA-listed streams)

All populations High

US-6 Tributaries Increase habitat 

complexity

Improve agricultural practices 

(disallow stream channel dredging 

in ESA-listed streams flowing 

through or adjacent to ag lands)

Stratum wide High

US-7 Tributaries Increase habitat 

complexity

Increase large wood, boulders, or 

other instream structure

All streams where 

coho salmon would 

benefit immediately

High

US-8 Tributaries Increase habitat 

complexity

Increase large wood, boulders, or 

other instream structure All populations Medium

US-9 Tributaries Increase habitat 

complexity

Conduct riparian planting projects 

on streams that flow through or 

adjacent to ag lands to increase 

wood recruitment to streams

All streams where 

coho salmon would 

benefit immediately; 

specifically

High

US-10 Off-Channel Increase habitat 

complexity and 

Increase large wood, boulders, or 

other instream structure 

All streams where 

coho would benefit 

immediately

High

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 6-52

Action 

ID

Habitat 

component Strategy Action Area Priority

connectivity to sidechannels

US-11 Off-Channel 

and Wetlands

Increase habitat 

complexity and 

connectivity and access 

to alcoves, off-channel 

ponds, floodplains, and 

wetlands

Increase beaver pond abundance

All streams where 

coho salmon would 

benefit immediately

High

US-12 Off-Channel

Increase habitat 

complexity and 

connectivity to sidechannels

Increase large wood, boulders, or 

other instream structure All populations Medium

US-13 Off-Channel 

and Wetlands

Increase habitat 

complexity and 

connectivity and access 

to alcoves, off-channel 

ponds, floodplains, and 

wetlands

Increase beaver pond abundance All populations Medium

US-14 Wetlands

Improve direct and 

indirect wetland 

connectivity to streams

Reduce existing and limit 

development of channel-confining 

structures including roads and 

infrastructure in the floodplain that 

disconnect wetlands from 

tributaries and mainstems

All streams where 

coho salmon would 

benefit immediately

Medium

US-15 Mainstem Improve instream flows

Develop water conservation 

strategies on the upslope 

agricultural areas with the intent of 

transferring conserved water to 

instream flows.

All populations High

US-16 Mainstems Improve water quality

Improve water quality by improving 

instream flows, channel 

complexity, stream shade, and 

substrate retention.

All populations High

US-17 Mainstems

Improve marginal and 

streambank habitat 

complexity

Increase large wood and marginal 

and streambank habitat structure

All streams where 

coho salmon would 

benefit immediately

High

US-18 Mainstems

Improve marginal and 

streambank habitat 

complexity

Increase large wood and marginal 

and streambank habitat structure All populations Medium

US-19 Mainstems

Improve wood 

recruitment to support 

long-term increases in 

habitat complexity

Improve timber harvest activities 

(increased harvest buffers on 

private industrial timberlands, 

reduce road densities on private 

and federal timberlands)

All streams where 

coho salmon would 

benefit immediately

High

US-20 Mainstems

Improve wood 

recruitment to support 

long-term increases in 

habitat complexity

Improve timber harvest activities 

(increased harvest buffers on 

private industrial timberlands, 

reduce road densities on private 

and federal timberlands)

All populations Medium

US-21 Estuary

Increase access to 

sloughs, side channels, 

and floodplains

Reduce fish passage barriers to 

floodplains by managing tidegate 

presence and operations.

Estuary wide Medium

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 6-53

Action 

ID

Habitat 

component Strategy Action Area Priority

US-22 Estuary

Increase access to 

sloughs, side channels, 

and floodplains

Reduce fish passage barriers to 

floodplains by reducing or setting 

dikes back.

Estuary wide Medium

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 6-54

6.3.5 Strategies and Actions for the Mid-South Coast Stratum

Recovery Strategy for the Mid-South Coast Stratum

The basic recovery strategy for coho salmon populations in the Mid-South Coast Stratum aims to 

protect freshwater and estuarine reaches that currently contain high quality habitat, and restore 

reaches with potential for additional high quality habitat. Actions will particularly focus on 

increasing the amount and quality of winter and summer rearing habitat by improving stream and 

estuarine habitat complexity—including increasing amounts of large wood and pool habitat, and 

connecting side channels, wetlands, and other off-channel areas. Collaborative actions will also 

focus on improving water quality, especially by reducing summer water temperatures, increasing 

water availability by reducing water withdrawals, reducing fine sediment levels, and increasing 

the amount of, and connectivity to, tidal wetland habitat.

The following actions illustrate the types of actions that could be implemented to improve MidSouth Coast Stratum coho salmon populations and habitats. Other approaches could also be 

implemented to achieve the desired results. The actions will be further refined, sequenced, and 

scheduled in coordination with other agencies and local stakeholders.

Key Strategies and Potential Actions for the Mid-South Coast Stratum

• Implement and, as necessary, revise local regulatory mechanisms, voluntary and 

incentivized efforts to protect and restore watershed processes that promote winter and 

summer rearing habitats (e.g., wood recruitment, habitat complexity, floodplain 

connectivity). Examples of regulatory programs include the Oregon Agricultural Water 

Quality Management Act, Oregon Forest Practices Act, FEMA National Flood Insurance 

Program, and state beaver statutes and administrative rules. Develop and approve 

scientifically credible, thorough Strategic Action Plans for the Coos, Coquille, 

Floras/New, and Sixes populations, consistent with ESU-level common framework. (See 

actions identified in Section 6.2.1.2 under Listing Factor A1, habitat actions at the ESU 

level.)

• Implement the Strategic Action Plans to protect and restore ecosystem processes and 

functions and coho salmon habitats. Actions identified in SAPs will likely include 

activities such as restoring habitat capacity for rearing juvenile coho salmon by 

increasing large wood loading, beaver pond habitat, and wetland/ off-channel 

connectivity, and by increasing native riparian vegetation to provide bank stability and 

shade stream reaches.

Mid-South Coast Stratum for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon

Independent Populations: Coos, Coquille, Floras/New, and Sixes

Dependent Populations: Johnson and Twomile

Current Status: Moderate level of certainty that the Mid-South Coast Stratum is sustainable 

Primary Limiting Factor: Stream complexity (all Mid-South Coast Stratum independent populations)

Secondary Limiting Factors: Water quality (all Mid-South Coast Stratum independent populations)

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 6-55

• Collaborate with governmental and non-governmental organizations and others to 

identify, and implement, actions that will protect and restore watershed processes, 

provide stream complexity for juvenile rearing, connect side channels, wetland and offchannel habitats, and reduce fine sediment levels. 

• Coordinate with ODEQ, ODF, ODA, SWCDs, and others to improve water quality, 

especially water temperatures, to increase carrying capacity and provide high quality 

summer rearing habitat for juvenile coho salmon. 

• As resources allow, develop and approve scientifically credible, thorough Strategic 

Action Plans for the Johnson and Twomile populations, consistent with ESU-level 

common framework.

• Provide and support public outreach, education and volunteer actions to protect and 

restore ecosystem process and functions, encourage beaver conservation and beaver dam 

analogues, and improve juvenile coho salmon rearing habitats.

• Re-establish connectivity of tidal and freshwater wetlands, especially during winter. 

Examples include the Bandon Marsh (Ni-les’tun Tidal Marsh) restoration and the Winter 

Lake area, both in the Coquille basin. 

• Establish increased riparian buffers with native riparian vegetation on agricultural and 

forestry lands.

• Reduce or eliminate new road development on private and federal timberlands and 

decommission existing roads.

• Reduce existing infrastructure in floodplains and limit future development.

• Reduce water withdrawals, especially in gravel-bedded tributaries.

• Re-establish streams to their floodplains.

• Monitor predation by non-native fish in the Coquille and Coos Rivers.

• Reduce predation rates by reducing populations of non-native fish in the Coquille River.

Priority Watershed Actions

State and Private Timber Lands

1. Increase protection of riparian forests with no-touch buffer widths.

2. Eliminate the construction of permanent new roads, unless constructed to relocate another 

permanent road which has greater impacts on Oregon Coast coho salmon habitat.

3. Limit placement of temporary roads and decommission roads where practicable.

4. Increase voluntary landowner placement of large wood into stream channels. 

Rural (including residential and agricultural) Lands 

1. Plant, restore, and protect riparian areas adjacent to stream channels using voluntary 

actions with regulatory backstops in place.

2. Improve lateral connectivity from the stream channels to adjacent wetlands. 

3. Seek opportunities to improve tidegates or floodgates to flood adjacent floodplains during 

the winter flows.

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 6-56

4. Improve natural stream channel form and function by discontinuing stream 

channelization and armoring of stream banks, and by placing large wood into stream 

channels.

5. Conserve water usage to allow more instream water.

Federal Lands 

1. Maintain a strong aquatic conservation strategy of some form within future management 

plans that protects ecological processes that form high quality coho salmon habitat.

2. Improve the transportation network that includes reducing the road network, minimizing 

the hydrologic connection of the roads to streams, reducing road-related fish passage 

barriers, and minimizing any new road development, especially in riparian zones.

Beaver Management

1. Include strategies to increase beaver, beaver ponds, and beaver dam analogues in 

strategic action plans.

2. Seek agreements with state and federal agencies and others to pursue non-lethal means of 

beaver removal (see Section 6.2.1.2, A1-1.2 above). If necessary, revise regulatory 

mechanisms to prohibit killing beaver within the range of Oregon Coast coho salmon 

unless property or infrastructure damage is occurring and only when all other options are 

exhausted.

3. Create a program to educate landowners, managers, policymakers and the public in 

general about the benefits of beaver ponds to the health of our ecosystems, with a focus 

on benefits to salmonids. Include opportunities to conserve and manage beaver through 

cost effective, non-lethal management practices (Pollock et al. 2015).

4. Implement the Beaver Restoration Guidebook (Pollock et al. 2015) to incorporate beaver,

beaver ponds, and beaver dam analogues into restoration actions.

Estuary and Tidal Lands

1. Update estuary assessments of tidal habitats important for coho salmon rearing and 

development to assess status and guide future development and implementation of 

restoration activities. 

2. Develop an estuary lowlands restoration strategy that considers improved access to 

historical floodplains through tidegate elimination, management, and operations; levee 

removal; and overwater structure modifications. 

Instream Flows

1. Organize an interagency stream flow assessment team to evaluate and identify:

a. Refugia areas that have adequate stream flow, water temperature, and riparian 

protections to support coho salmon.

b. Existing stream flow needs.

c. A strategy to address flow restoration, which will protect existing refugia, expand 

refugia to adjacent reaches, and provide a connection to a larger network of refugia 

areas.

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 6-57

Secondary Watershed Actions

Fish Passage and Access

1. Continue efforts to improve fish passage at dams, bridges, culverts, and other identified 

fish passage barriers. Assess remaining fish passage barriers and develop and 

implementation strategy and schedule.

Management of Fine Sediment

1. Identify upstream sources of fine sediment loads.

2. Relocate streamside roads.

3. Reduce soil compaction.

4. Identify high debris flow hazard areas (Sixes population).

5. Identify soils with high turbidity potential (Sixes population).

State Lands

1. Coordinate with NMFS to develop a Forestry Habitat Conservation plan(s) to protect and 

restore Oregon Coast coho salmon habitat.

Table 6-8. Habitat component specific actions to restore high quality coho salmon habitat in the Mid-South Coast 

Stratum.

Action ID Habitat 

component Strategy Action Area Priority

MSCS-1 Tributaries Improve instream 

flows

Improve water quality by developing 

water conservation strategies on the 

upslope agricultural areas with the 

intent of transferring conserved 

water to instream flows.

Coquille, Sixes High

MSCS-2 Tributaries Improve water 

quality

Improve water quality by improving 

instream flows, channel complexity, 

stream shade, and substrate 

retention.

All Populations High

MSCS-3 Tributaries

Improve wood 

recruitment to 

support long-term 

increases in habitat 

complexity

Improve timber harvest activities 

(increased harvest buffers on 

private industrial timberlands, 

reduce road densities on private 

and federal timberlands)

All Populations High

MSCS-4 Tributaries

Improve wood 

recruitment to 

support long-term 

increases in habitat 

complexity

Improve state agricultural practices 

(grazing and hay production buffers 

on ag land adjacent to ESA-listed 

streams)

All Populations High

MSCS-5 Tributaries Increase habitat 

complexity

Improve state agricultural practices 

(disallow stream channel dredging 

in ESA-listed streams flowing 

through or adjacent to ag lands)

All Populations High

MSCS-6 Tributaries Increase habitat 

complexity

Increase large wood, boulders, or 

other instream structure

All streams where 

coho would benefit 

immediately

High

MSCS-7 Tributaries Increase habitat 

complexity

Increase large wood, boulders, or 

other instream structure All Populations Medium

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 6-58

Action ID Habitat 

component Strategy Action Area Priority

MSCS-8 Tributaries Increase habitat 

complexity

Conduct riparian planting projects 

on streams that flow through or 

adjacent to ag lands to increase 

wood recruitment to streams

All streams where 

coho would benefit 

immediately; 

High

MSCS-9 Tributaries Increase habitat 

complexity

Reconnect historical off channel 

habitat

All Populations High

MSCS-10 Tributaries

Improve riparian 

forests to increase 

shade and reduce 

stream temperatures

Improve agricultural practices by 

protecting riparian forests and 

providing stream buffers sufficient 

for OC coho salmon recovery 

through protection and 

enhancement of shade to reduce 

stream temperatures and improve 

water quality.

All Populations High

MSCS-11 Tributaries

Improve riparian 

forests to increase 

shade and reduce 

stream temperatures

Improve timber management 

activities, including road 

management, by protecting riparian 

forests and providing stream buffers 

sufficient for OC coho salmon 

recovery through protection and 

enhancement of shade to reduce 

stream temperatures and improve 

water quality.

All Populations High

MSCS-12 Tributaries

Increase water 

quality by reducing 

fine suspended 

sediment loads

Improve water quality by increasing 

harvest buffers on private industrial 

timberlands and by reducing road 

densities on private and federal 

timberlands to reduce chronic 

erosion and sediment inputs

Sixes High

MSCS-13 Tributaries

Increase water 

quality by reducing 

fine suspended 

sediment loads

Improve agricultural practices 

(grazing and hay production buffers 

on ag land adjacent to ESA-listed 

streams) to reduce chronic erosion 

and sediment inputs

Sixes High

MSCS-14 Tributaries, Increase habitat 

complexity

Improve gold placer and gold 

suction dredge regulations to 

minimize or prevent impacts to OC 

coho salmon; consider special 

closed areas, closed seasons, and 

restrictions on methods and 

activities.

Sixes, Coquille High

MSCS-15 Off-Channel

Increase habitat 

complexity and 

connectivity to sidechannels

Increase large wood, boulders, or 

other instream structure 

All streams where 

coho would benefit 

immediately

High

MSCS-16 Off-Channel 

and Wetlands

Increase habitat 

complexity and 

connectivity and 

access to alcoves, 

off-channel ponds, 

floodplains, and 

wetlands

Increase beaver pond abundance

All streams where 

coho salmon 

would benefit 

immediately

High

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 6-59

Action ID Habitat 

component Strategy Action Area Priority

MSCS-17 Off-Channel

Increase habitat 

complexity and 

connectivity to sidechannels

Increase large wood, boulders, or 

other instream structure All Populations Medium

MSCS-18 Off-Channel 

and Wetlands

Increase habitat 

complexity and 

connectivity and 

access to alcoves, 

off-channel ponds, 

floodplains, and 

wetlands

Increase beaver pond abundance All Populations Medium

MSCS-19 Wetlands

Improve direct and 

indirect wetland 

connectivity to 

streams

Reduce existing and limit 

development of channel-confining 

structures including roads and 

infrastructure in the floodplain that 

disconnect wetlands from tributaries 

and mainstems.

All streams where 

coho salmon 

would benefit 

immediately

High

MSCS-20 Mainstem Improve instream 

flows

Improve water quality by developing 

water conservation strategies on the 

upslope agricultural areas with the 

intent of transferring conserved 

water to instream flows.

Coquille, Sixes High

MSCS-21 Mainstems

Improve marginal 

and streambank 

habitat complexity

Increase large wood and marginal 

and streambank habitat structure

All streams where 

coho salmon 

would benefit 

immediately

High

MSCS-22 Mainstems

Improve marginal 

and streambank 

habitat complexity

Increase large wood and marginal 

and streambank habitat structure All Populations Medium

MSCS-23 Mainstems

Improve wood 

recruitment to 

support long-term 

increases in habitat 

complexity

Improve timber harvest activities 

(increased harvest buffers on 

private industrial timberlands, 

reduce road densities on private 

and federal timberlands)

All Populations High

MSCS-24 Mainstems Increase habitat 

complexity

Reconnect historical off channel 

habitat

All Populations High

MSCS-25 Mainstems

Improve riparian 

forests to increase 

shade and reduce 

stream temperatures

Improve agricultural practices by 

protecting riparian forests and 

providing stream buffers sufficient 

for OC coho salmon recovery 

through protection and 

enhancement of shade to reduce 

stream temperatures and improve 

water quality.

Sixes, Floras High

MSCS-26 Mainstems

Improve riparian 

forests to increase 

shade and reduce 

stream temperatures

Improve agricultural practices by 

protecting riparian forests and 

providing stream buffers sufficient 

for OC coho salmon recovery 

through protection and 

enhancement of shade to reduce 

stream temperatures and improve 

water quality.

Coos, Coquille Medium

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 6-60

Action ID Habitat 

component Strategy Action Area Priority

MSCS-27 Mainstems

Increase water 

quality by reducing 

fine suspended 

sediment loads

Improve water quality by increasing 

harvest buffers on private industrial 

timberlands and by reducing road 

densities on private and federal 

timberlands to reduce chronic 

erosion and sediment inputs

Sixes High

MSCS-28 Mainstems

Increase water 

quality by reducing 

fine suspended 

sediment loads

Improve agricultural practices 

(grazing and hay production buffers 

on ag land adjacent to ESA-listed 

streams) to reduce chronic erosion 

and sediment inputs

Sixes High

MSCS-29 Mainstems Increase habitat 

complexity

Improve gravel mining practices 

making them consistent with other 

streams in Oregon (Chetco River 

and Hunter Creek) by implementing 

standard best management 

practices to state and federal 

regulations and permitting of gravel 

mining (retain gravel bar form and 

function (per Federal Interagency 

Working Group 2006). Explore 

upland rock/gravel sources for

similar quality rock for quarrying, 

rather that removing from river 

bottom.

Coquille High

MSCS-30 Mainstems

Improve riparian 

forests to increase 

shade and reduce 

stream temperatures

Improve timber management 

activities, including road 

management, by protecting riparian 

forests and providing stream buffers 

sufficient for OC coho salmon 

recovery through protection and 

enhancement of shade to reduce 

stream temperatures and improve 

water quality.

Sixes, Floras High

MSCS-31 Mainstems

Improve riparian 

forests to increase 

shade and reduce 

stream temperatures

Improve timber management 

activities, including road 

management, by protecting riparian 

forests and providing stream buffers 

sufficient for OC coho salmon 

recovery through protection and 

enhancement of shade to reduce 

stream temperatures and improve 

water quality.

Coos, Coquille Medium

MSCS-32 Mainstem Increase habitat 

complexity

Conduct native riparian tree planting 

projects on streams that flow 

through or adjacent to ag lands to 

increase wood recruitment to 

streams

All Populations

High

MSCS-33 Mainstem Improve water 

quality

Improve water quality by improving 

instream flows, channel complexity, 

stream shade, and substrate 

retention.

All Populations High

MSCS-34 Mainstems Improve wood 

recruitment to 

Improve agricultural practices 

(grazing and hay production buffers 

All Populations High

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 6-61

Action ID Habitat 

component Strategy Action Area Priority

support long-term 

increases in habitat 

complexity

on agricultural land adjacent to 

ESA-listed streams)

MSCS-35 Mainstem Increase habitat 

complexity

Conduct native riparian tree planting 

projects on streams that flow 

through or adjacent to ag lands to 

increase wood recruitment to 

streams

All Populations

High

MSCS-36 Estuary

Increase access to 

sloughs, side 

channels, and 

floodplains

Reduce fish passage barriers to 

floodplains by managing tidegate 

presence and operations.

Coos, Coquille High

MSCS-37 Estuary Increase habitat 

complexity

Seek to restore winter habitat 

refuge areas in the floodplains in 

the freshwater ecotone of the upper 

tidal area of the estuaries.

Coos Watershed: 

Palouse Creek, 

Larson Creek, 

Kentucky Creek, 

Willanch Creek, 

Catching Slough, 

South Slough, and 

tidal areas above 

the Millicoma River 

and South Coos 

River confluence

High

MSCS-38 Estuary Increase habitat 

complexity

Seek to restore winter habitat 

refuge areas in the floodplains in 

the freshwater ecotone of the upper 

tidal area of the estuaries.

Coquille 

Watershed: from 

the confluence of 

the South Fork and 

North Fork below 

Myrtle Point 

downstream to 

Bear Creek

High

MSCS-39 Estuary

Increase access to 

sloughs, side 

channels, and 

floodplains

Reduce fish passage barriers to 

floodplains by reducing or setting 

dikes back.

Estuary wide High

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 6-62

6.4 Potential Effectiveness of Management Actions and Need for LifeCycle Evaluations

The abundance of Oregon Coast coho salmon natural-origin returns has increased substantially 

since listing. The working hypothesis is that the combination of several factors—greatly reduced 

harvest rates and hatchery production levels and improved ocean survival—have increased coho 

salmon spawner abundance and improved the status of the ESU, but that persistent habitatrelated threats continue to affect the long-term sustainability of the ESU. Despite improvements 

in some freshwater and estuarine habitat areas, many areas with the highest habitat capacity to 

support coho salmon remain severely degraded due to legacy forest management practices 

combined with lowland agricultural and urban development. The lack of high quality winter and 

summer rearing habitat for juvenile coho continues to be of particular concern.

Another important uncertainty for Oregon Coast coho salmon recovery relates to changes in 

hatchery production. To what extent has reduced hatchery production improved sustainability, 

and can reduced hatchery production, combined with increased quantity and quality of 

freshwater and estuarine rearing habitat result in sufficient egg-to-smolt survival to ensure 

viability of the populations when marine survival drops to low levels? 

These uncertainties leave NMFS with inadequate confidence that the ecosystem has healed 

sufficiently so that the naturally produced ESU could be sustainable over the long term. NMFS

recommends that continued RME will be necessary to address these uncertainties.

This recovery plan aims to address the uncertainties and target specific actions to close the gap 

between threatened and recovered status. The recommended actions in this Plan are intended to 

improve sustainability, gain key information to reduce uncertainty, and implement an effective 

adaptive management approach.

Evaluations across the Life Cycle

Pilot use of a multi-stage life-cycle model is under development for Oregon Coast coho salmon 

by the NWFSC) with the goal of improving our understanding of the combined and relative 

effects of actions across the life cycle. We are designing this model to incorporate empirical 

information and working hypotheses on survival and capacity relationships at different life 

stages. The development of life-cycle models, could provide a valuable framework for 

systematically assessing the potential response of Oregon Coast coho salmon to management 

strategies and site-specific actions under alternative potential climate scenarios. The life-cycle 

model can also be used to assess the status of the ESU a whole.

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 7-1

7. Estimates of Time and Costs 

ESA section 4(f)(1)(B) directs that recovery plans, to the maximum extent practicable, 

incorporate “estimates of the time required and the cost to carry out those measures needed to 

achieve the Plan’s goal and to achieve intermediate steps toward that goal.”

This chapter describes the best available estimates of time and costs necessary to recover Oregon 

Coast coho salmon. As we have described in earlier chapters, there are multiple scenarios that 

could constitute recovery under the ESA, and a variety of strategies and actions that would lead 

to those scenarios. This makes it very difficult to estimate the time and costs to get to recovery. 

Consequently, the following sections provide a range of estimates, using several basic 

assumptions and based on the information currently available. 

7.1 Time Estimates

The Oregon Coast Coho Conservation Plan described the desired status goal for broad sense 

recovery for this ESU as ‘ambitious.’ We agree with the state of Oregon’s assessment that 

“significant changes to harvest management and hatchery programs have already been 

implemented and have significantly diminished harvest and hatchery management as limiting 

factors. Habitat remains the primary limiting factor for the majority of coho populations in the 

ESU that can be influenced by Oregon’s management.”

We also agree with the OCCCP’s description of two principle factors that we need to consider

in the process of predicting the time-frame required to achieve the goals for this ESU:

1. Ecological processes. Addressing habitat limiting factors (insufficient stream complexity, 

water quality, etc.) to achieve desired status for the ESU will require significantly 

increasing the productive capacity of coho salmon and their habitat. Restoration of 

ecological processes that support high quality habitat requires time and is constrained by 

patchwork landownership patterns, different regulatory structures, and historical land use 

practices. Even given an expected increase in the level of non- regulatory participation in 

habitat improvement work, it will take time to (1) produce detectable improvements in 

habitat quality and (2) restore the biological and ecological processes across the ESU.

2. Scientific uncertainty. There currently are many uncertainties related to the effectiveness 

of restoration actions; the cause and impact of predators; the relative importance of all 

phases of juvenile rearing and habitats; the potential role of beaver ponds to increase 

productive capacity of coho salmon habitat; and the total amount of Coho Winter High 

Intrinsic Potential Habitat (CWHIP) actually available. These scientific uncertainties will 

require both funding and time to provide information that may be considered in future 

management programs.

Oregon used a 25-year time frame for its Management Unit Plan for the Lower Columbia River

(OLCR Plan), with many recovery actions on 5-, 10-, 15-, 20-, and 25-year schedules. The 

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 7-2

OCCCP uses three time-frame scenarios for habitat improvement work – 17, 33 and 50 years, 

and describes the 50-year time-frame as:

“probably the most realistic, given likely levels of funding, the time required to 

resolve scientific uncertainty, and the time required to restore ecological processes.” 

However, these time frames are the state’s estimates for achieving broad sense recovery, not 

ESA delisting. We think ESA delisting could occur sooner than these time frames, depending on 

near-term conditions (marine and freshwater), which actions are implemented, and how effective 

they are. For instance, if NMFs has moderate certainty that the biological status is sustainable 

and the combination of voluntary and regulatory measures, can ensure that delisting criteria will 

be met, it is possible that we could delist Oregon Coast coho salmon more quickly – potentially 

following the 2021 or 2026 5-year reviews. On the other hand, without adequate documentation 

that voluntary and regulatory measures are effective, and depending on marine conditions, we 

think it could take ten years or more to achieve ESA recovery for Oregon Coast coho salmon. 

7.2 Cost Estimates

While this recovery plan contains an extensive list of actions to recover Oregon Coast coho 

salmon, there are many uncertainties involved in predicting the course of recovery and in 

estimating total costs. Such uncertainties include biological and ecosystem responses to recovery 

actions, as well as long-term and future funding to implement recommended actions. Thus, it is 

impracticable to estimate all projected actions and costs to reach recovery. Instead, it is most 

appropriate to focus on a shorter time frame, with the understanding that before the end of each 

five-year implementation period, specific actions and costs will be estimated for subsequent 

years. Rather than speculate on conditions that may or may not exist that far into the future, this 

Plan relies on ongoing monitoring and periodic plan review regimes to add, eliminate, or modify 

actions through adaptive management as information becomes available and until such time as 

the protection under the ESA is no longer required.

This section provides rough estimates of 5-year and 10-year (total) costs for actions 

implemented to recovery Oregon Coast coho salmon. We have relied on the OCCCP (Section 6 

and Appendix 2 and Annual Reports) and reviewed other cost estimates in recent recovery 

plans (the Lower Columbia River Recovery Plan, Southern Oregon/ Northern California Coast 

Coho Salmon Recovery Plan, and Central California Coast Coho Salmon Recovery Plan).

Because we determined that ODFW actions have reduced the threats from hatchery and harvest 

management to the point where they no longer impede recovery, we have estimated costs based 

on projects for active habitat restoration projects only. We have not estimated the cost of 

regulatory changes—any costs associated would be an indirect effect of the change in regulation 

and we cannot predict what those costs would be with any certainty.

To these estimates, we need to add a rough estimate of at least $1 million per year for ODFW’s 

Aquatic Inventory Project, which we consider essential to monitor the status of habitat on the 

coast; we would like to see increases in that budget if resources are available, which could 

reduce the time needed to determine if habitat-based delisting criteria are being met. 

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 7-3

The OCCCP includes three time-frame and cost scenarios for conducting habitat improvement, 

presented in Table 7-1 below, to attain the goal of broad sense recovery (beyond ESA recovery 

and delisting), including federal, state and landowner costs for a full range of voluntary and 

regulatory actions. ODFW assumed that there would be a 30 percent increase in the availability 

of high quality habitat in 5 years (scenario 1), 10 years (scenario 2), and 15 years (scenario 3).

These three scenarios were based on the monitoring program design (five-year rotating panel)

that requires a five-year period to evaluate habitat status in each population or the ESU. Under 

the assumptions in each of these scenarios, the costs would be the same, but spread out over 17 

years under the first scenario, 33 years under the second scenario, and 50 years under the third 

scenario.

The cost estimates based on the OCCCP provide useful information for determining recovery 

costs; however, the estimates are based on several assumptions, identified below, and may not 

reflect the total cost of recovery. For example, the cost estimates primarily focus on instream 

habitat restoration work to achieve needed high quality habitat. Additional funds may be needed 

to increase floodplain connectivity, enhance riparian vegetation, and implement other actions to 

achieve the desired habitat conditions.

ODFW used the following key assumptions to estimate the costs for the OCCCP, including:

• Smolts during poor ocean conditions are only produced from high quality habitat.

• High quality habitat is defined as habitat that can produce 2,800 smolts-per-mile.

• Only instream habitat restoration work is needed to achieve high quality habitat. In other 

words, no benefits will accrue to the populations from recent and future modifications to 

harvest and hatchery management programs.

• Instream habitat complexity is the only factor limiting smolt production.

• All instream habitat restoration projects create high quality habitat.

• Habitat converted to high quality habitat is sustained for 50 years.

• From 1997 to 2003, approximately $13.2 million dollars was invested on instream 

habitat restoration in 524 miles of stream: a cost/mile of approximately $25,000. This 

cost is applicable to future habitat improvement work.

The OCCCP explained that assumptions required to calculate the values were tenuous and 

warranted revision based on future research and monitoring, and therefore the habitat goals and 

associated funding were provided as interim goals to be revised as better information became 

available in the future.

The Oregon Coast Coho Annual Report 2011-2012 review of management actions states in part:

“Coast-wide habitat restoration and conservation activities by private land owners, local

community based conservation/restoration groups, state and federal agencies has been

under way since 1995.The Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB) funds and

tracks restoration projects and expenditures in their Oregon Watershed Restoration

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 7-4

Inventory (OWRI) database.50F

51 Data from the OWRI indicates that between 1995 and

the end of 2012, approximately $164,354,795 in cash and $25,600,813 as in-kind 

expenditures was spent on 6,738 different restoration projects within the Oregon coast 

natural coho salmon ESU.”

Comparing the OCCCP estimates (published in 2007) for the 17 year scenario with the annual 

report tally shows that actual expenditures in the Oregon Coast coho ESU areas—in cash and 

in-kind services—totaled approximately $189 million, many times the 2007 estimate.

The facts that expenditures have already far exceeded the OCCCP cost estimates and the habitat 

trend monitoring has yet to show significant improvements underscore the difficulty in 

developing reliable cost estimates. Furthermore, there is no good way to estimate how many of 

the costs estimated to achieve the state’s goals for broad sense recovery will be necessary to 

achieve ESA delisting, except that the costs will be less for ESA delisting than broad-sense 

recovery. 

NMFS recognizes that, regardless of our recommendations for future actions, federal, state and 

other sources of funds for recovery actions may not increase over previous expenditures. If the 

effectiveness of restoration actions continue to be increased as a result of enhanced scientific 

support for prioritization, along with collaboration among partners, we assume that the cost of 

recovery efforts will, continue at approximately the same level as in the last 17 years. In 2016 

dollars, we estimate costs will be in the $60 to $100 million range in the next 5 years. The costs 

will depend greatly on the ability to target habitat restoration activities to areas where the 

greatest gains can be made in improving winter and summer rearing habitats. The costs will 

also depend on success in strengthening programs, laws and regulations to protect coho salmon 

habitat, and then enforcing them. These numbers do not include potential direct and opportunity 

costs to private sector businesses, depending on the actions and regulatory mechanisms 

implemented, nor do they include financial benefits that we expect to result from successful 

rebuilding of the Oregon Coast coho salmon ESU.

51 http://apps.wrd.state.or.us/apps/oweb/owrio/default.aspx

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016

 
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 7-5

Table 7-1. 2007 Estimates of three time-frame and cost scenarios under which habitat improvement work may be 

conducted across the ESU, by population, to achieve the desired status goal for the ESU. Under the assumptions in 

each of these scenarios, desired status would be achieved in 17 years under scenario 1, 33 years under scenario 2 and 

50 years under scenario 3. In each scenario, the total cost is estimated to be about $62,000,000. Based on the 

assumptions in scenario 2 in this table, the cost estimate for 5 years would be about $18,000,000. These costs are all 

in 2007 dollars. (Table 5 in the OCCCP). 

Population

New Miles 

HQH Needed

Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3

Total Cost

Miles/

year

Cost per

Biennium

Miles/

year

Cost per

Biennium

Miles/

year

Cost per

Biennium

Necanicum 41 2.4 $120,179 1.2 $61,910 0.8 $40,861 $1,021,518

Nehalem 311 18.3 $915,880 9.4 $471,817 6.2 $311,399 $7,784,982

Tillamook 126 7.4 $371,276 3.8 $191,263 2.5 $126,234 $3,155,844

Nestucca 45 2.6 $131,510 1.4 $67,748 0.9 $44,714 $1,117,838

Salmon 16 0.9 $46,821 0.5 $24,120 0.3 $15,919 $397,982

Siletz 79 4.6 $231,714 2.4 $119,368 1.6 $78,783 $1,969,570

Yaquina 136 8.0 $400,122 4.1 $206,123 2.7 $136,042 $3,401,038

Beaver 11 0.7 $33,647 0.3 $17,333 0.2 $11,440 $286,001

Alsea 129 7.6 $378,881 3.9 $195,181 2.6 $128,820 $3,220,493

Siuslaw 381 22.4 $1,120,602 11.5 $577,280 7.6 $381,005 $9,525,115

Lower Umpqua 195 11.5 $574,484 5.9 $295,946 3.9 $195,325 $4,883,117

Middle Umpqua 301 17.7 $886,116 9.1 $456,484 6.0 $301,280 $7,531,990

North Umpqua 51 3.0 $150,635 1.6 $77,600 1.0 $51,216 $1,280,399

South Umpqua 349 20.5 $1,025,551 10.6 $528,314 7.0 $348,687 $8,717,182

Coos 58 3.4 $169,318 1.7 $87,224 1.2 $57,568 $1,439,203

Coquille 213 12.5 $626,301 6.5 $322,640 4.3 $212,942 $5,323,561

Floras 42 2.5 $123,481 1.3 $63,612 0.8 $41,984 $1,049,593

Sixes 16 1.0 $48,387 0.5 $24,926 0.3 $16,451 $411,287

Total 2,501 147.1 $7,354,907 75.8 $3,788,892 50.0 $2,500,668 $62,516,711

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 7-6

This page intentionally left blank.

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 8-1

8. Implementation

Oregon Coast coho salmon recovery is possible in the foreseeable future. Since NMFS first listed 

the species in 1999, several key threats have been abated and the biological status of the species 

has improved significantly. Many organizations and individuals continue to invest significantly 

in habitat restoration and implement other actions to help the species. NMFS anticipates that a 

focused, effective recovery implementation strategy could serve as the final catalyst for delisting 

the Oregon Coast coho salmon.

Ultimately, the recovery of Oregon Coast coho salmon will depend on the commitment and 

dedicated actions of the many individuals and entities who share responsibility for the

stewardship of the species’ future, and NMFS looks forward to partnering with them in a 

collaborative effort. Today we face a common challenge: to take the remaining steps needed to 

bring the species to a level where we are confident that it is and will continue to be sustainable 

and persistent.

This chapter presents potential elements of an integrated public-private implementation approach 

to achieve the goals of our recovery plan. NMFS proposes this implementation approach to 

coordinate the refinement, prioritization, implementation, monitoring and reporting of the 

recovery strategies and actions in Chapter 6 to abate the remaining threats to the species at the 

population, stratum and ESU levels. As explained earlier, the key to improving the overall status 

of Oregon Coast coho salmon in the face of anticipated future reductions in marine survival 

associated with climate change is improving freshwater and estuarine coho salmon rearing 

habitat through a combination of successful locally- supported voluntary programs, with 

regulatory backstops. While we have recommended increased habitat protections through 

modifications in regulatory mechanisms, we understand that voluntary programs, not regulatory 

mechanisms, will probably be the primary focus of the recovery effort. The primary focus of this 

chapter is on voluntary actions.

Overall Implementation Approach: Enhancing Partnerships 

Fundamentally, recovery of Oregon Coast coho salmon depends on enhancing partnerships 

among federal and state agencies, tribes, private landowners, local businesses, non-governmental 

organizations, and others. NMFS recognizes that partnerships among a variety of different 

stakeholders can help shape practicable solutions that fit the long-term recovery of the species 

while also supporting sustainable communities in coastal Oregon. 

Enhancing Public-Private Collaboration through Coast Coho Business Plan

NMFS supports the continuation, and development, of public-private partnerships. One example 

is the Coast Coho Business Plan (a public-private partnership described below) and associated 

Our Vision: The Oregon Coast Coho Salmon Recovery Plan serves as the final catalyst so 

NMFS can delist Oregon Coast coho salmon within the next 10 years.

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 8-2

population-level Strategic Action Plans (SAPs). The Coast Coho Business Plan (Business Plan) 

approach was designed in 2014 by the public-private Coast Coho Partnership, which includes the 

Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB), Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA Restoration Center, Wild Salmon Center (WSC), and 

the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. 

The Coast Coho Business Plan is intended to: 

1. market the unique opportunity to recover Oregon Coast (OC) coho to major funders, and 

describe the essential role of voluntary habitat protection and restoration efforts; 

2. identify the highest priority projects required at the population (watershed) scale to 

advance regional recovery goals; and 

3. aggregate the cumulative costs and anticipated benefits of these projects, and coordinate 

funding to accelerate implementation.

Projects included in the Coast Coho Business Plan are generated through a one-year planning 

process in which local communities use a science-based framework to develop a Strategic Action 

Plan (SAP) for a local coho salmon population. 

The Business Plan is envisioned as a living document, in which new SAPs are incorporated as 

they are completed. As the Business Plan grows, the Coast Coho Partnership will work with 

additional state, federal, and private partners to direct new and existing funding into SAP 

implementation. In addition to accelerating the recovery of Oregon Coast coho salmon, the 

Business Plan and its constituent SAPs will support other coastal priorities as well; most notably, 

helping communities meet water quality standards and maintain working lands. These outcomes 

are essential if coastal stakeholders are to achieve the shared goals of improving watershed 

health and promoting economic security throughout the region. Together, the Business Plan and 

its SAPs will serve as a nexus among federal, state and local recovery efforts and provide an 

essential framework to advance the habitat restoration strategies outlined in Chapter 6.

Enhancing Voluntary Conservation Programs

NMFS encourages future conservation efforts that enhance voluntary conservation programs and 

create new innovative voluntary incentive programs. Together, such programs would help halt 

the net loss of juvenile coho salmon rearing habitat from rural residential development, 

agriculture and forestry, as well as actively create additional juvenile rearing habitat. When 

voluntary conservation programs are reliable and effective, NMFS will rely on them during its 

delisting determinations (See Chapter 4). For example, the Business Plan framework, with 

associated commitments of funds from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Oregon 

Watershed Enhancement Board and others, can significantly increase the success and reliability 

of voluntary conservation programs. 

Expanding and improving the alignment of federal and state voluntary programs that provide 

technical and financial assistance, and regulatory assurances (e.g., Federal Safe Harbor 

Agreements) to landowners who are able to implement conservation activities will help 

accelerate coho salmon recovery. For these efforts to succeed, building cooperation at the local 

level to help implement high priority recovery actions and meet community needs should be 

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 8-3

integrated into voluntary programs. Understanding how socio-economic factors influence 

ranchers and farmers voluntary adoption of conservation practices will be key to building such 

cooperation. For example, a Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) investigation (Hoag 

et al. 2012) that examined how farmers and ranchers make decisions on adopting conservation 

practices revealed that generally, changes in practices must work for the farmer by: increasing 

revenue, lowering costs, reducing labor or time, or supporting other values important to the 

farmer/rancher such as stewardship and legacy. This report suggested that financial incentives 

can be helpful and necessary to improve participation; however, by themselves, they are not 

sufficient as the only incentive to adopt new practices. A strong network of support (financial, 

technical, and peers) and flexibility in identifying solutions is therefore needed to promote 

adoption of conservation practices.

Enhancing State and Federal Coordination and Collaboration

While effective voluntary programs provide the primary catalyst for achieving ESA recovery of 

Oregon Coast Coho salmon, maintaining this recovery requires effective federal and state 

support and regulatory backstops that help maintain the species’ long-term persistence. Thus, 

NMFS is actively partnering with the state of Oregon to integrate the implementation of this 

recovery plan with state efforts, including those through the Oregon Plan for Salmon and 

Watersheds (ORS 541.898), Oregon Coast Coho Conservation Plan, and Oregon Watershed 

Enhancement Board activities. Several new initiatives by the state (see Table 8-1) have the 

potential to enhance Coast Coho salmon recovery efforts. NMFS also continues to work to align 

federal programs that provide technical and financial assistance and regulatory assurances to help 

achieve recovery (see Table 8-2). NMFS will continue to work with agencies, tribes and 

stakeholders to implement coordinated and collaborative programs and projects. (See Chapter 3 

for a description of current federal and state regulatory programs and Chapter 4 for criteria.) 

With effective incentives, technical support and collaboration, private landowners can 

voluntarily manage their lands consistent with coho recovery. When voluntary conservation 

programs are reliable (i.e., certain to occur) and effective, NMFS can rely on them during its 

delisting determinations (see Chapter 4 for details on our Policy on Evaluating Conservation 

Efforts). 

Key Considerations to Focus Recovery Plan Implementation 

• Support, align, and expand voluntary incentive programs.

• Focus actions on reducing the highest remaining threats to recovery in collaboration with 

affected entities by protecting and restoring juvenile winter and summer rearing habitats 

in areas with the greatest potential to contribute to recovery. 

• Prioritize strategies and actions and watersheds with the greatest opportunities for 

partnering with communities to engage in coho salmon conservation.

• Continue to build local group capacity by providing increased technical support across 

the ESU and by providing sufficient funding so they can compete for restoration planning 

and project funding. 

• Identify innovative funding approaches to coordinate and leverage existing funding to 

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 8-4

maximize public and private investments, including major expansion and improved 

accountability of ODA’s Focus Area initiative within the range of Oregon Coast coho 

salmon. 

• Work with private landowners, and associated organizations, to explore programs that 

certify that agricultural products are produced sustainably. 

• Identify and reduce existing disincentives that discourage private landowners from 

working voluntarily on conservation efforts.

• Identify and provide support to create new incentive options that stimulate conservation 

efforts. 

• Identify programs or tools that encourage private landowners to use best management 

practices and voluntarily apply for regulatory assurances when appropriate. 

• Encourage implementation of the recovery plan at the ‘ground level’ to promote local 

support, governance and participation.

• Explore a unified coast-wide mitigation program so that the costs of new development or 

conversion are greater in high-valued coho salmon habitat.

• Encourage agencies to use their authorities to implement recovery plan actions.

• Integrate the elements of our approach to regulatory mechanisms as described in Chapters 

4 and 6 with the voluntary approaches.

8.1 NMFS Role in Recovery Implementation

Congress affirms that the purposes of the ESA are to provide a means whereby the ecosystems 

upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved and a program 

for the conservation of endangered species and threatened species. Congress also declared that all 

federal agencies will seek to conserve endangered species and threatened species and utilize their 

authorities in furtherance of the purposes of the ESA. 

The ESA authorizes NMFS to contribute to such conservation programs for species under its 

jurisdiction by: (1) conducting status reviews to determine if a species should be listed or delisted 

under the ESA; (2) designating critical habitat; (3) developing and implementing recovery plans; 

(4) consulting with other federal agencies to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried 

out by such agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or result in 

adverse modification or destruction of critical habitat; and (5) permitting any act for scientific 

purposes or to enhance the propagation or survival of the affected species or any incidental 

taking associated with a conservation plan. 

NMFS exercises all of its unique authorities to advance recovery of Oregon Coast coho salmon. 

Our workforce has extensive experience in salmon conservation. However, NMFS lacks 

sufficient resources, local knowledge and reach to fully recover Oregon Coast coho salmon on 

our own. Moreover, developing solutions to complex conservation challenges in isolation can 

limit creation of innovative, coherent and integrated approaches for Oregon Coast coho salmon 

recovery that can make a bigger difference. When NMFS can establish, or be the catalyst for, 

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 8-5

strategic partnerships, long-lasting resolutions can be crafted to accelerate the recovery of 

Oregon Coast coho salmon for the for the benefit of current and future generations of Oregonians 

and the American people. Accordingly, NMFS intends to use this recovery plan to organize and 

coordinate recovery of Oregon Coast coho salmon in partnership with state, tribal, and federal 

resource managers, and with local stakeholders.

NMFS’ will serve as a collaborating partner to the many entities and agencies who share 

responsibility for the species’ future. In this role we intend to be an active participant. This 

includes a working partnership with OWEB, ODFW and other state agencies, federal and local 

agencies, and other stakeholders to implement the recovery plan. We intend to provide 

leadership in implementing the Plan, working closely in collaboration with Oregon’s ongoing 

coho salmon conservation efforts. 

At the same time, NMFS will continue to work to ensure that the agency’s statutory 

responsibilities for recovery under the ESA are met. This will include conducting ESA five-year 

status reviews; and making determinations to delist or change ESA listing status. Finally, NMFS 

will use the recovery plan to provide information and context for its other responsibilities for 

implementing the ESA, including implementation of ESA section 4(d), section 7 consultations, 

and section 10(a)(1)(A) permits. (See Section 1.4 for a description of these responsibilities.)

In addition to our authorities described above, NMFS continues to oversee several voluntary 

incentive-based conservation programs (described in Table 8-2) that contribute, or could 

contribute, to Oregon Coast coho salmon recovery.

8.2 Role of State Agencies in Recovery Plan Implementation

State agencies contribute to conservation and recovery by providing financial and technical 

support for voluntary programs. They also support the success of recovery efforts through 

implementation of regulatory backstops designed to protect coho salmon habitat and achieve 

water quality standards 

For instance, ODA’s (voluntary) Focus Areas, when aligned with coho salmon habitat 

restoration, have the potential to make significant progress towards water quality (particularly 

temperature and sediment) and recovery goals. With increased support from other sources

(federal, state, local), this voluntary program has great potential. On the regulatory side, ODA’s 

Strategic Implementation Areas (SIA) can ensure compliance with water quality rules and 

successes in one SIA can serve as a means to encourage compliance in neighboring areas. 

In terms of forest practices, development in floodplains, and other examples, effective outreach 

and communication between regulators and those subject to regulation, combined with more 

effective incentives, have the potential to increase the overall effectiveness of voluntary 

programs.

State of Oregon Programs

Public agencies in Oregon offer a diverse range of voluntary conservation programs to local 

watershed groups, individual landowners and other stakeholders to restore habitat that contribute 

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 8-6

to coho salmon recovery. On September 16, 2016, Oregon provided to NMFS a multi-agency 

report regarding state programs that contribute to coho conservation in order to provide an 

improved understanding of Oregon’s efforts to recover Oregon Coast coho (Oregon 2016). 

Table 8-1 summarizes information on existing state programs from Oregon’s report.

Table 8-1. State of Oregon Natural Resource Agency Programs that Contribute to Coast Coho Salmon Recovery.

State of Oregon Programs that Contribute to Coast Coho Salmon Recovery

Multi-agency Programs

Oregon Clean Water Partnership. Initiated in 2016, the partnership aims to improve water quality on rural lands to 

provide for healthy fish, and healthy watersheds and rural communities. The Partnership is a long-term effort to 

improve state agencies’ coordination of clean water data and monitoring and prioritization of programs and 

investments with the outcome of improving clean water in rural Oregon, in places where it’s most needed. 

Habitat Conservation Banking. Oregon is collaborating with NMFS to identify opportunities to establish a 

conservation bank for anadromous fish habitat in Oregon, including Oregon Coast coho salmon. A strategically

focused conservation banking program to preserve, restore and create or enhance floodplain habitats to offset 

impacts of new development in the floodplain could: (1) improve conservation for coho recovery; (2) reduce risks 

and costs from flooding; and (3) ease landowner/ municipality compliance with mitigation requirements.

Local Inter-Agency Team Pilot Program. Oregon is working with NMFS to identify priority populations and refine 

high quality habitat goals for achieving ESA delisting/recovery. Oregon will then establish small Inter-Agency 

Teams in the identified population areas comprised of one local representative from each state natural resource 

agency, watershed council, and soil and water conservation districts. The teams will: (1) identify priority stream 

reaches or watersheds for protection and restoration; (2) identify key local contacts for individual landowners; (3) 

meet with landowners in priority areas to discuss protection/ restoration needs and options; and (4) identify 

programs to best achieve desired outcomes consistent with specific landowner needs. Coordination at the state 

level will assure efficient movement of local team proposals through permitting, funding, or other state processes. 

Mid-Coast Water Planning Partnership. This partnership is an example of a place-based planning pilot, coconvened by the City of Newport and OWRD.

Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB)

Coast Coho Business Plan. In 2015, OWEB funded the development of the Business Plan framework and its 

application to Strategic Action Plans developed in three pilot watersheds (the Nehalem, Siuslaw, and Elk Rivers). 

In 2017, the public-private Coast Coho Partnership will incorporate project priorities resulting from these three pilot 

SAPs into Oregon’s Coast Coho Business Plan. The Partnership will select three additional populations for SAPs 

annually. Selections are based on letters of interest submitted by local partner organizations working on the coast. 

Participation in the program is entirely voluntary.

Lottery Contributions. Since 1999, Oregon has committed 7.5 percent of state lottery revenues to projects that 

enhance native fish and wildlife habitat or improve water quality. More than $163 million has been invested and 

leveraged in restoration projects in the Oregon Coast coho salmon ESU by OWEB, landowners and other funders. 

OWEB alone invested nearly $29 million in specifically in High Intrinsic Potential streams to benefit Oregon Coast 

coho salmon and their habitat, matched with more than $15 million in funding from other sources. 

Focused Investment Partnership Grants. In 2015, the OWEB Board established priorities for a new Focused 

Investment Partnership (FIP) Program. A FIP is an investment that addresses a board-identified priority of 

significance to the state; achieves clear and measurable ecological outcomes, uses integrated, results-oriented 

approaches through a strategic action plan and is implemented by a high-performing partnership. Two of the 

seven priorities are tied to Oregon Coast coho salmon habitat and populations. 

Tidegates. OWEB has identified tidegate removal and replacement investments as a priority area to investigate 

via programmatic effectiveness monitoring. OWEB has funded 11 tidegate replacement/removal restoration 

projects totaling $3.4 million. OWEB is investing in work with Oregon State University to better inform investments 

in strategic, high quality tidegate restoration projects.

Soil and Water Conservation District and Watershed Council Capacity Funding. Since 2007, OWEB has invested 

$9.2 million to support watershed councils and SWCDs along the Oregon coast. This funding supports the staff 

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 8-7

capacity of local organizations to complete restoration, outreach and other critical functions along the coast. 

Moving forward, the OWEB Board has committed to continuing strong capacity investments throughout the state.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW)

Western Oregon Stream Restoration Program. Since 1995, the Western Oregon Stream Restoration Program 

(WOSRP) has provided technical assistance and consultation for state and federal agencies, local governments, 

watershed councils, and landowners on protection, enhancement, and restoration of fish and wildlife habitats. The 

WOSRP helps achieve the desired status for coastal coho salmon by developing and implementing stream 

restoration projects that create high quality coho salmon rearing habitat. 

Habitat Protection. ODFW biologists review proposed land and water use actions relative to impacts to listed 

salmonid species, provide agencies with local knowledge of site conditions, and work with landowners to 

incorporate habitat restoration projects on their land while equipment is mobilized. Biologists cover a wide range of 

activities and collaborate with state and federal permitting agencies to help ensure sustainable development while 

minimizing, mitigating, or eliminating negative impacts to fish and wildlife habitat. 

Beaver Management. ODFW works to promote beaver activity where acceptable by landowners. ODFW has 

created maps that identify potential locations for beaver activity and high quality coho habitat. The agency also 

convened an advisory work group to bring together various interests and identify information needed to bridge the 

gap between beaver restoration and damage. ODFW hopes to develop a statewide beaver coordinator position.

Fish Screening and Passage Program. This program benefits coho salmon by approving, re-establishing, 

improving, and maintaining fish passage and installing and maintaining fish screens. Focused programmatic 

projects on the coast include the Salmon SuperHWY (an effort in the Tillamook and Nestucca areas to address 

barriers), the Fish Passage Mitigation Pilot Project, and a culvert repair programmatic agreement with ODOT. 

Oregon Plan Fish and Habitat Monitoring Program. This program directly supports monitoring required for the 

state conservation plan, pending federal recovery plan, status assessments, state and federal management and 

listing decisions, harvest and hatchery management decisions, habitat action prioritization and effectiveness, and 

implementation tracking/reporting. This monitoring provides data used to adaptively manage populations in order 

to ensure long-term sustainability. 

Salmon Trout Enhancement Program. The Salmon Trout Enhancement Program (STEP) utilizes volunteers to 

assist with management outcomes for salmon and trout. STEP volunteers participate in propagation, habitat 

restoration projects, monitoring, and educational outreach.

Agricultural Water Quality Management Area Program. This program regulates and works with agricultural 

landowners to achieve and maintain conditions necessary to meet water quality standards.

Pesticide Program. The program educates and licenses pesticide applicators, ensuring appropriate use of 

pesticides including in and near water bodies with enforcement authority for violations.

Noxious Weed Control Program. The program protects valued natural resources and agricultural lands from the 

introduction and spread of noxious weeds that displace and compete with native vegetation and desirable 

economic plants. The agency works with state, federal, and county agencies and private landowners to implement 

Early Detection and Rapid Response projects or provide assistance through Oregon State Weed Board grants. 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ)

Nonpoint Source Program. The program provides technical and financial support for priority projects that address 

water quality problems in surface and groundwater resources resulting from non-point source pollution. In the 

Oregon Coast coho salmon area, ODEQ invested $1,722,962 in nonpoint source projects from 2007-2015. 

Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF)

Paired Watershed Studies. Studies through the Watershed Research Cooperative inform adaptive management 

by challenging scientific assumptions via watershed-level research while simultaneously evaluating forest 

practices effectiveness at operational scales. Major investigations include the Trask Paired Watershed Study and 

the Ripstream project. 

Continued Investment in Oregon Plan Measures. Since 1995, private forestland owners have made significant 

investments in improving water quality and fish habitat. Reported cumulative investments 1995 to 2015 were $102 

million. Forest landowners completed 5,000 voluntary projects, including cross drain and large wood placement. 

Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 8-8

Oregon Statewide Land Use Program. The program originated in 1973 and provides protection of farm and forest 

lands, conservation of natural resources, and orderly and efficient development of urban areas. The program 

works to achieve 19 planning goals, several of which support water quality and salmon habitat.

Oregon Coastal Management Program. The program conserves and protects Oregon’s outstanding coastal 

resource by assisting local governments to develop livable, resilient coastal communities and knitting together the 

programs and activities of local, state, and federal agencies on the Oregon coast. Mandatory coastal resource 

management and habitat protection measures are set forth in Statewide Planning Goals

Oregon Department of State Lands

State Removal-Fill Program. The Oregon Department of State Lands has made several improvements to this 

program since initial coast coho salmon listing in 1999.

Mitigation Programs. Since 2009, the agency has collaborated with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the 

EPA to develop wetland and stream function-based and watershed-based mitigation programs. The agency’s 

federally-approved In-Lieu Program (ILF) and the mitigation banking program, administered with the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, provide mechanisms to mitigate impacts off-site. 

Watershed Councils

Watershed councils. These local organizations are convened under the authority of county governing bodies as

voluntary, non-regulatory groups. They play a fundamental role in watershed restoration activities in Oregon. 

Supported by OWEB and others, the watershed councils on the coast, along with soil and water conservation 

districts, are often the primary providers of conservation and recovery efforts. The conservation and recovery 

efforts will continue to rely on watershed councils as key partners.

Soil and Water Conservation Districts

Soil and Water Conservation Districts. The Oregon Soil and Water Conservation Commission provides assistance 

and direction to Oregon’s Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCDs). The SWCDs provide technical 

assistance and tools to protect and manage and resources. Currently 13 of the SWCDs in Oregon have

boundaries that overlap with the Oregon Coast coho salmon ESU. The SWCDs provide on-the-ground facilitation 

and resources to help encourage local participation in voluntary conservation programs.

8.3 Role of Federal Agencies in Recovery Plan Implementation

NMFS recognizes that a number of federal agencies have ongoing programs and regulatory 

authorities that contribute greatly to the recovery of Oregon Coast coho salmon. Successful 

implementation of this NMFS recovery plan will rely to a significant extent on the collaboration 

and continued contributions of programs initiated by NMFS, the U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of 

Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Natural Resource Conservation Service, 

Farm Service Agency, Environmental Protection Agency, National Fish and Wildlife 

Foundation, and other agencies. We describe some of the federal agency contributions below in 

Table 8-2.

Table 8-2. Federal Programs that Contribute to Coast Coho Salmon Recovery.

Federal Programs that Contribute to Coast Coho Salmon Recovery

NOAA Fisheries and NMFS

Pacific Coastal Salmonid Restoration Fund (PCSRF). The PCSRF, established by Congress in 2000, support 

salmon and steelhead conservation efforts in California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Alaska. The program is 

essential to preventing the extinction of the 28 listed salmon and steelhead species on the West Coast and, in 

many cases, has stabilized the populations and contributed to their recovery course. NMFS is charged with 

administering PCSRF's competitive grants process, and has awarded states and tribes a total of over $1.1 billion

since 2000. The program has also leveraged over $1.3 billion in total state in-kind, and other matching, funds. 

Since 2012, when NMFS refocused its investments to prioritize on-the-ground restoration, over $4 million of 

PCSRF dollars have been invested in Oregon Coast coho salmon ESU to support habitat restoration.

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 8-9

Conservation Banks. Conservation Banks are permanently protected lands that contain natural resource values. 

These lands are conserved and permanently managed for species that are endangered, threatened, candidates 

for listing as endangered or threatened, or are otherwise species-at-risk. Conservation banks function to offset 

adverse impacts to these species that occurred elsewhere, sometimes referred to as off-site mitigation. In 

exchange for permanently protecting the land and managing it for these species, NMFS approves a specified 

number of habitat or species credits that bank owners may sell. NMFS and the state of Oregon are using

Conservation Banking Guidance to consider establishing a conservation bank for anadromous fish habitat in 

Oregon, including the Oregon Coast coho salmon ESU. Such an approach could steer potential development/

conversion away from essential coho salmon habitats (high intrinsic potential) to better conserve the species. 

NOAA Restoration Center. Created in 1991, the Center is devoted to restoring the nation’s coastal, marine, and 

migratory fish habitat. It focuses on opening rivers, reconnecting coastal wetlands, restoring corals, and rebuilding 

shellfish populations by providing funds and technical assistance, supporting local community engagement, 

providing collaboration with different partners, and conducting monitoring and socioeconomic research on 

restoration benefits. 

NOAA Fisheries Science Centers. The Northwest Fisheries Science Center provides scientific support for building 

robust monitoring and research programs to better understand the status and trends of coho salmon. Chapter 9 

describes their scientific support for coho salmon conservation.

Safe Harbor Agreements. A Safe Harbor Agreement is a voluntary agreement involving private or other nonfederal property owners whose actions contribute to the recovery of species listed as threatened or endangered 

under the ESA. In exchange for private landowner actions that provide a net conservation benefit, participating 

property owners receive formal ESA assurances from NMFS without requiring any additional or different 

management activities by the participants for the duration of the Agreement. NMFS encourages use of Safe 

Harbor Agreements as conservation tools with willing landowners to recover Oregon Coast coho salmon. 

Natural Resource Conservation Service

Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). The EQIP provides financial and technical assistance to 

landowners for providing structural or management conservation projects, including projects that conserve or 

restore riparian habitat, improve water quality, and/or reduce irrigation demands. The Conservation Stewardship 

Program (CSP) also promotes voluntary conservation practices and makes payments to landowner based on the 

performance of their conservation activities. From 1995 to 2014, a total of $5.4 million in EQIP funds were 

invested in Oregon counties that make up the Oregon Coast coho salmon ESU. EQIP program funding has also 

been successfully targeted and leveraged through other programs, including the National Water Quality Initiative.

Regional Conservation Partnership Program. NRCS offers several large grant programs, including the RCPP, 

which provide funding for watershed-level restoration projects that are solutions based, innovative, and 

collaborative. Projects are evaluating within three different funding pools based on scale; whether it falls entirely 

within a state, is multi-state or national in scope, or is within one of the eight regional critical conservation areas. 

Working Lands for Wildlife. This NRCS initiative could be applied to support recovery of Oregon Coast coho 

salmon. The program is specifically designed to benefit high-priority habitat of selected wildlife species that are 

declining, candidates for listing, or ESA-listed species. It provides financial and technical assistance as well as 

regulatory assurances to landowners who voluntarily improve or restore habitat for species targeted by NRCS and 

its partners for recovery. So far, seven species have been included in this initiative, the Greater Sage-Grouse a 

notable regional example. 

Farm Services Agency

Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP). The Farm Services Agency administers several 

conservation related programs, including CREP, which could successfully enroll landowners whose agricultural 

land serve as Oregon Coast coho habitat. CREP is an incentive-based voluntary program for agricultural 

landowners to receive compensation and technical assistance for establishing conservation practices that address 

wildlife habitat, water quality or soil conservation issues. OWEB co-administered CREP in Oregon.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

National Coastal Wetlands Conservation Grant (NCWCG) program. Oregon is a recipient of this grant program, 

which is designed to acquire, restore, and enhance wetlands in coastal states through competitive matching 

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 8-10

grants to state agencies. The primary goal of the NCWCG Program is the long‐term conservation of coastal 

wetland ecosystems. 

Partners for Fish and Wildlife. USFWS administers this voluntary program to help protect, enhance, and restore 

wildlife habitat on privately owned lands. The conservation program provides landowners with technical and 

financial assistance to restore fish and wildlife habitats in partnership with other federal agencies, state and local 

governments, educational institutions, businesses, and conservation organizations. 

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation

Conservation Grant Program. The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF), created by Congress in 1984, is 

a major conservation-grant maker that offers a variety of conservation grant programs around the nation. One 

such grant, the Oregon Governor’s Fund for the Environment, provides funds to ensure long-term conservation

and restoration of Oregon’s wild salmon populations and habitats. NFWF and its project partners, including NMFS, 

have successfully leveraged this grant program through a variety of projects, including the Coast Coho Business 

Plan, and will continue to use this fund to help support priority Oregon Coast coho salmon conservation projects. 

8.4 Role of Non-Governmental Organizations 

Non-Government Organizations (NGOs) have provided major contributions to the conservation 

and recovery of Oregon Coast coho salmon and their continued work will strengthen publicprivate cooperative efforts to recover Oregon Coast coho salmon. Along the Oregon coast, nonprofit, voluntary NGOs provide a variety of types of support that boosts public-private 

cooperative efforts including, restoration planning and project management, monitoring projects, 

interface with private landowners, building coalitions, and securing additional restoration 

funding from foundations and other sources to supplement public funding. Non-profit 

associations can also be instrumental in identifying sustainable, conservation approaches that 

depend on working effectively with private landowners (farmers, ranchers, forestry). The Oregon 

Farm Bureau, Oregon Cattlemen’s Association, and the Oregon Dairy Farmers Association work 

to promote the economic vitality of Oregon’s farmers and ranchers while also promoting 

environmentally sound industry practices. Numerous organizations including the Wild Salmon 

Center and The Nature Conservancy, land trusts, estuary partnerships and others have been 

leaders in contributing to important restoration planning and implementation over the last 20 

years in coastal Oregon. Effective coordination and collaboration with Oregon’s conservation 

groups and industry associations will be important in building long-term solutions and 

accelerating recovery of Oregon Coast coho salmon. 

8.5 Examples of Successful Cross-Jurisdictional Public-Private 

Partnerships

While many effective voluntary conservation programs already exist, additional efforts to finetune alignment (‘stacking’) among existing public programs would better incentivize cooperation 

from private landowners and optimize public investments in strategic locations to advance coho 

recovery. Below, we describe several successful public-private partnerships utilizing voluntary 

conservation programs that could be used as models for stimulating Oregon Coast coho salmon 

recovery.

 

SageCon Partnership. In 2015, the SageCon Partnership charted a path forward for the 

conservation of the Greater Sage Grouse in eastern Oregon. Drawing on the diverse capabilities 

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 8-11

of Oregon’s natural resource agencies, along with the USFWS, NRCS, the Bureau of Land 

Management, SWCDs, county governments, agricultural landowners and representative 

organizations, tribes, and conservation groups, the focused attention advanced from the SageCon 

effort is intended to promote the health of the greater sage grouse and its habitat as well as 

sustainable rural communities and economies in eastern Oregon. The public-private partnership 

efforts in Oregon to create a comprehensive plan, using both regulatory and voluntary 

conservation incentive approaches, contributed to the USFWS’ decision not to list the greater 

sage grouse as a threated species under the ESA in 2015. The plan leveraged and better aligned 

funding across multiple federal and state agencies, created an innovative mitigation system to 

‘steer’ development from highly valued habitats, and promoted ranchers to voluntarily 

participate in conservation efforts under the ESA. The SageCon Partnership represents how a 

public-private partnership can build and support a strong regulatory underpinning with effective 

and reliable voluntary conservation programs can promote species conservation at the landscape 

scale. 

Coast Coho Business Plan Grants. As discussed earlier, in 2014, the Wild Salmon Center 

partnered with OWEB, ODFW, NMFS, NOAA Restoration Center, and NFWF to design a 

‘Business Plan’ for the conservation of Oregon Coast coho salmon. The overarching Business 

Plan is intended to be a living document, into which new strategic action plans (SAPs) are 

incorporated when complete. 

In 2015, Oregon funded the program in three pilot SAPs for the Nehalem, Siuslaw, and Elk 

River watersheds. Plans are now underway and projected for completion in December 2016. The 

second round of SAPs will be completed in 2017. As a result of this partnership, NFWF has 

committed $600,000 to projects that result from the development of local strategic action plans. 

In addition, the Oregon Departments of Forestry and Agriculture have both committed to 

working in partnership in areas where plans are being developed and implemented.

Wilson River Restoration. The 194-square-mile Wilson River watershed is the largest of five 

main drainage basins feeding Tillamook Bay on Oregon’s northern coast. The dominant land use 

in the watershed is state and federal forestlands (81 percent of the watershed’s total area). Dairy 

pastures dominate the lowland areas of the watershed. Oregon’s Wilson River is popular site for 

kayakers and canoeists. In 1997, the lower 8.5-mile segment of the Wilson River was found to 

have dangerously high bacteria levels from bacteria from livestock and human sources, which 

moved the state’s Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to place the river on the 303(d) 

list of impaired waterways. That listing meant that recreational use was not advised. Work began 

toward finding a solution to Wilson River’s water woes by local citizens, dairy farms, nonprofits 

and natural resource agencies including the Tillamook Estuary Partnership, Oregon Watershed 

Enhancement Board (OWEB), Oregon State University, USDA Natural Resources Conservation 

Service (NRCS), USDA Farm Service Agency, DEQ, Oregon Department of Agriculture 

(ODA), and the Tillamook Soil and Water Conservation District, which leveraged their 

investments in multiple conservation projects and water quality data monitoring intended to 

improve and measure the watershed’s health. Partners spent millions of dollars to restore and 

protect Tillamook Bay and its watershed. Projects included 20 riparian enhancements on private 

land that fostered planting, fencing and invasive species removal to stabilize streambanks and to 

keep livestock off a buffer of land along the river’s edge; purchase of three wetland parcels and 

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 8-12

improvements to Tillamook County Creamery Association wastewater treatment system that 

discharges to the river. Farmers invested in additional improvements as well. They built covered 

manure storage areas and improved the efficiency of sprinkler systems and fertilization programs 

to prevent runoff from entering waterways. Monitoring has been in place long enough now for 

scientists to see patterns of improvement. They predict with confidence that conditions will 

continue to improve over the next 25 years. 

Tillamook Estuaries Partnership. The Tillamook Estuaries Partnership (TEP), worked closely 

with community, state and federal entities to develop and implement the Tillamook Bay 

Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan beginning in 1999. The plan recommended 

63 actions that could help improve water quality, enhance aquatic habitat and mitigate flooding. 

In 2003 Tillamook Estuary Partnership (TEP) began offering its Backyard Planting Program 

BYPP, a cost-free, voluntary assistance program to help. With support from multiple 

organizations, landowners installed best management practices throughout the Wilson River 

watershed. Data show a statistically significant decreasing trend in bacteria levels. In fact, the 

river has met water quality standards since 2005. The program’s coordinator works with 

landowners to develop site specific riparian restoration plans. Between 2003 and 2007, the 

program helped plant almost 10,000 trees along more than 17 miles of streams in the Tillamook 

Bay watershed. Numerous partners have worked to restore Tillamook Bay and its watershed, 

including the OWEB, ODA, ODEQ, ODFW, Tillamook Estuaries Partnership, Tillamook 

County, Tillamook Bay Watershed Council, USFWS, Tillamook County Creamery Association, 

Tillamook SWCD, Tillamook Native Plant Cooperative and private landowners. This successful 

public-private partnership collectively leveraged and spent more than $1.4 million in the Lower 

Wilson Creek watershed, creating voluntary conservation incentives for private landowners and 

to carry out restoration projects to improve water quality. 

Southern Flow Corridor. For nearly a decade, the Oregon Solutions Consortium – composed of 

local and state government agencies as well as private citizens – has worked with the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency, NMFS and the USFWS to gain approval and funding for the

Southern Flow Corridor project. The purpose of the project is to reduce life safety risk from 

floods, reduce flood damages to property and other economic losses from floods, while also 

contributing to the recovery of federally listed Oregon Coast coho salmon and restoring habitat 

for other native fish and wildlife species.

The project will remove the levee system near the confluence of the Trask and Tillamook Rivers 

and be replaced by a setback tidal dike to form the corridor. When the project is complete in 

2016, it will reduce flooding in a roughly 3,000-acre area by removing 125,000 cubic yards of 

fill currently blocking water flow to the bay. As a consequence of removing that material, 14 

miles of slough and channels that have been cut off from the rivers for decades will be 

reconnected, creating valuable overwintering habitat for salmon at the confluence of some of the 

most productive salmon-producing streams in the Northwest. The success of the project has 

relied on a shared vision to combine both flood control and river restoration as well as improve 

inter-agency alignment to maximize resources. 

Winter Lake Restoration Project. Another successful public-private partnership for coho 

conservation is underway in the Coquille River Basin in southern Oregon. The Coquille Basin 

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 8-13

was once a prime area for salmon breeding, rearing and fishing, but today’s salmon runs are a 

mere fraction of historic highs. Tidal wetlands, critical to the survival of salmon and birds, once 

covered most of the Coquille Valley. Today, only 5 percent of the historic wetlands in the 

Coquille estuary remain. 

The Winter Lake Restoration Project will restore wetland function and tidal flow on two parcels 

of land, totaling 420 acres managed by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and the 

China Creek Gun Club. The Winter Lake Restoration Project’s goal is to improve overwintering 

habitat for coho salmon. The China Creek Gun Club, Beaver Slough Drainage District, The 

Nature Conservancy, Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife, local landowners and the local 

community have been working together since 2008 to restore ecosystem function and develop 

infrastructure that meets fish passage criteria. The collaborative and voluntary restoration effort 

has been built on the shared vision that a healthy working landscape strengthens the local 

community by creating jobs in Coos County, improving farming and ranching, improves water 

quality and restoring a thriving environment for fish and birds. The project site is known locally 

as Winter Lake due to the fact that the entire floodplain is typically inundated during winter 

months in most years due to high water levels in the Coquille River. This purpose of the project 

is to improve fish access into the floodplain for overwintering habitat that is limiting to coho 

salmon and other species, to improve the habitat quality of the site, to improve water quality and 

flushing within the district, support native plant communities, and replace the existing failing 

tide gate infrastructure with a new culvert/gate system that improves fish passage and also 

increases flexibility for BSDD landowners to manage water on the site. The Winter Lake 

restoration project is another example of how public-private partnerships that create common 

ground can work together to successful craft solutions that benefit both coho salmon and 

sustainable agricultural communities. 

As these examples of public-private collaboration show, watershed restoration efforts succeed 

when the interests of communities, landowners, and local jurisdictions align and are considered 

in problem solving. Solutions that fit for the long-term bring in local communities and 

landowners as full partners in problem solving - recognizing the need to recover listed species 

while ensuring the economic vitality of coastal communities. Successful partnerships do not 

simply build and share better data. Rather, they succeed when individuals and organizations 

work together and exchange ideas, build relationships, identify common interests, and leverage 

resources so they solve problems of mutual interest. Such community-based conservation 

networks support sustainable management of private ‘working lands’ while advancing the 

recovery of Oregon Coast coho salmon. 

8.6 Implementation and Oversight 

Effective implementation of recovery actions for Oregon Coast coho salmon will require 

coordinating the actions of diverse private, local, state, and federal parties spread across the ESU.

NMFS is actively partnering with Oregon to integrate the implementation of this recovery plan 

with the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds (ORS 541.898), the OCCCP, and the Oregon 

Watershed Enhancement Board’s activities, at the ESU level including the development of the 

Coho Business Plan and population-level Strategic Action Plans with site-specific management 

actions. 

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 8-14

NMFS will continue to work with ODFW, OWEB, other state, federal and local agencies, tribes,

non-governmental organizations, and others to collaborate in the most effective ways to provide 

ESU-level coordination of recovery efforts. This will include adapting implementation of the 

OCCCP with newer state initiatives to help ensure that recovery efforts are closely coordinated.

8.7 Conclusion

As these public-private partnership models of collaboration show, watershed restoration efforts 

succeed when the interests of communities, landowners, and local jurisdictions align and are 

considered in problem solving. Solutions that fit for the long-term bring in local communities 

and landowners as full partners in problem solving ─ recognizing the need to recover listed 

species while ensuring the economic vitality of coastal communities. At the same time, strong 

leadership is also critical, especially, when multiple public agencies need to work to align their

capacities. It is important for various parties to remain open to innovative approaches to problem 

solving, thinking out of the box, while maintaining a shared vision of where the coalition is 

going.

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 9-1

9. Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation and 

Adaptive Management51F

52

The long-term success of recovery efforts for Oregon Coast coho salmon will depend on the

strategic use of research, monitoring, and evaluation (RME) to provide useful information to

decision makers within an adaptive management framework and to NMFS in future listing 

determinations. Research, monitoring, and evaluation programs associated with recovery plans

need to gather the information that will be most useful in tracking and evaluating

implementation and action effectiveness and assessing the status of listed species relative to 

recovery goals. Planners and managers then need to use the information collected to guide and

refine recovery strategies and actions. These elements of recovery plans are crucial for salmon

because of the complexity of the species’ life cycles, the range of factors affecting survival,

and the limits on our understanding of how specific actions affect species’ characteristics and

survival.

We intend to continue to work closely with ODFW and other state and federal agencies to 

implement this RME guidance, which contains specific recommendations based on the current 

status of the Oregon Coast coho salmon ESU and habitat and regional guidance. This chapter

provides the following information:

• A brief description of the concept of adaptive management and overview of Oregon 

Coast coho salmon recovery plan RME needs,

• A summary of regional guidance for adaptive management and RME,

• The RME components of the Plan, and

• An overview of RME regional coordination efforts and needs.

9.1 Overview of Adaptive Management and RME Needs

Adaptive management is the process of adjusting management actions and/or overall approach

based on new information as it relates to management questions and goals. Adaptive

management works by coupling decision making with data collection and evaluation. Most

importantly, it works by offering an explicit process through which alternative approaches and

actions can be proposed, prioritized, implemented, and evaluated (NMFS 2007). Successful

adaptive management requires that monitoring and evaluation plans be incorporated into

overall implementation plans for recovery actions. These plans should link monitoring and 

evaluation results explicitly to feedback on the design and implementation of actions. In 

adaptive management, recovery strategies are treated like working hypotheses that can be

acted upon, tested, and revised (Lee 1999). Figure 9-1 illustrates the adaptive management

process.

52 Material from the OCCCP and the ESA Recovery Plan for Lower Columbia River Coho Salmon, Lower Columbia River 

Chinook Salmon, Columbia River Chum Salmon, and Lower Columbia River Steelhead was used in developing much of this 

chapter.

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016

 
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 9-2

Figure 9-1. The Adaptive Management Cycle.52 F

53

Several types of monitoring can support adaptive management and help managers make sound 

decisions; for Oregon Coast coho salmon, the priority for monitoring and evaluation is rearing 

habitat:

• Implementation monitoring and compliance monitoring, which are used to evaluate

whether recovery plan actions are being implemented as directed. To the extent 

there are available resources, we recommend a tracking system that records how local, 

state, and federal agencies and landowners have implemented key actions to increase 

habitat complexity and improve water quality (including on forest, agricultural, and 

rural lands) with clear schedules for implementation and monitoring. We have 

described a randomized sampling program that would test whether permits issued 

under local and state regulatory actions designed to protect riparian and instream 

habitat are in compliance and that the provisions have been enforced, and recommend 

that the compliance rate should be equal to or greater than 90 percent.53F

54

• Status and trend monitoring, which assesses changes in the status of an ESU and its

component populations, and changes in the status or significance of the threats to an

ESU. (We applaud ODFW’s continued work in this category.)

• Effectiveness monitoring, which tests hypotheses about cause-and-effect 

relationships and determines via research whether an action is effective and 

should be continued.

It is also important to explicitly address the many unknowns in salmon recovery—the ‘critical

uncertainties’ that make management decisions much harder. Doing so will involve

prioritizing critical uncertainties and ensuring that appropriate research is conducted that can

inform managers on the questions (NMFS 2007).

53 This figure and substantial information in this section comes from the Lower Columbia Recovery Plan, June 2013. 54 (From Crawford and Rumsey 2011).

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016

 
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 9-3

The most important critical uncertainties at this time include the condition (including net change) 

of freshwater and estuarine rearing habitats and the influence of near-term ocean conditions on 

population sustainability.

In particular, the potentially negative effects of climate change are important for each habitat and 

life history stage. We need to consider the cumulative impacts across the coho salmon life cycle

and across multiple generations. Because these effects are multiplicative across the life cycle and 

across generations, small effects at individual life stages can result in large changes in the overall 

dynamics of populations. Despite large uncertainties surrounding specific effects at individual 

life stages, expectations for increasing air and water temperatures, drier summers, higher

incidence of flooding, and altered estuarine and marine habitats lead us to expect increasingly

frequent years with low survival, resulting in an overall increase in risk to the ESU from climate

change over the next 50 years.

Additional uncertainties and risks that warrant attention include:

• The cumulative impacts to the ecosystem, across the coho salmon life-cycle and across

multiple generations (including freshwater habitat, disease and parasitism) related to the

expected temperature effects of global climate change on Oregon Coast coho salmon. 

• Population-level impacts from predation, especially in the Lakes Stratum where nonnative fish are a threat. To determine the significance of this threat, NMFS and/or ODFW 

could periodically (as resources allow) conduct, compile, and make available the status of 

invasive species and diseases known to affect coho salmon.

• Pinniped and seabird predation has been identified as a potential threat to salmon 

recovery. How significant of a threat these species pose to salmon recovery, however, has 

not been clearly identified due to insufficient research and data. 

• Poor ocean conditions may increase the risks to salmon associated with predation

(Limburg et al. 2016). Forage fish are an essential food source for pinniped predators and 

decreased availability due to poor ocean conditions may lead to increased pressure on 

salmon as a food source. Poor ocean conditions may also reduce the growth rate of 

salmonid smolts making it harder for them to avoid predators and susceptible to predation 

for a longer period of time. 

• A decrease in high quality habitat is another factor that may lead to increased predation 

risk. When the quantity and quality of habitat decreases it confine both predators and 

prey to a smaller area, which gives salmon fewer places to hide and allows easier access

by predators.

NMFS intends to work with ODFW on adaptive management, including consideration of the 

monitoring approach described in the Coastal Multi-Species Conservation and Management Plan

(ODFW 2014). 

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 9-4

9.2 Guidance for Adaptive Management and RME

NMFS and other entities have developed documents to guide and coordinate salmon and

steelhead RME efforts throughout the Pacific Northwest. Overall, the goal of these guidance

documents is to ensure that monitoring programs are designed to provide the information we

and others need to understand the effects of recovery actions and evaluate the status of salmon

and steelhead populations and the threats they face. Another objective of the guidance

documents has been to ensure that data is managed, shared, and integrated in a cost-effective

manner. The primary guidance documents are described briefly below.

• In 2007, the NMFS Northwest Region released Adaptive Management for ESAListed Salmon and Steelhead Recovery: Decision Framework and Monitoring

Guidance (NMFS 2007). This document describes the questions we ask in

evaluating species status and making listing and delisting decisions. It offers

conceptual-level guidance, not specific instructions, on gathering the information

that will be most useful in tracking progress and assessing the status of listed

species.

The document emphasizes that adaptive management is an experimental approach in 

which the assumptions underlying recovery strategies and actions are clearly stated

and subject to evaluation (NMFS 2007). It further states that a monitoring and

evaluation plan to support adaptive management should provide (1) a clear statement

of the metrics and indicators by which progress toward achieving goals can be

tracked, (2) a plan for tracking such metrics and indicators, and (3) a decision

framework through which new information from monitoring and evaluation can be

used to adjust strategies or actions aimed at achieving the Plan’s goals. This 

framework for Oregon Coast coho salmon was described in Section 4.

The document also discusses the various types of monitoring needed for salmon 

recovery, categorized as status and trend monitoring, effectiveness monitoring, 

validation monitoring, implementation monitoring, and research on critical 

uncertainties.

There have been numerous additions to the scientific literature on habitat protection and 

restoration and related RME in recent years. We recommend that RME programs for 

Oregon Coast coho incorporate new guidance as it becomes available. One example that 

is pertinent to the Oregon Coast coho salmon habitat effort is Section 8, “Monitoring and 

Evaluation of Restoration Actions” in Stream and Watershed Restoration by Roni and 

Beechie.54 F

55

• The NMFS Northwest Region document, Guidance for Monitoring Recovery of Pacific 

Northwest Salmon and Steelhead (Crawford and Rumsey 2011), builds on the 2007 

adaptive management guidance document with specific recommendations for monitoring, 

data collection, and reporting ESA information (Crawford and Rumsey 2011). We 

55 Roni and Beechie 2012.

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016

 
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 9-5

incorporated a number of suggestions from this document in our Listing Factor Criteria 

Component of the Delisting Criteria (Section 4.3).

Recommendations include monitoring that addresses all of the viable salmonid

population (VSP) criteria and the threats to salmon and steelhead (organized under

the five ESA listing factors). The guidance also makes recommendations for setting

up regional databases and coordinating regional data collection so that the various

agencies and tribes involved in salmon recovery can share data and report it

efficiently to NMFS and others.

• The Salmon Monitoring Advisor is a website developed by the Pacific Northwest 

monitoring community in the Pacific Northwest Aquatic Monitoring Partnership 

(PNAMP) to provide a comprehensive, technically rigorous framework to help 

practitioners, decision makers, and funders design monitoring programs. The monitoring 

advisor is a web-based system that synthesizes a wide array of information into a 

systematic framework that offers an organized, structured procedure to help users 

efficiently design and implement reliable, informative, and cost-effective salmon 

monitoring programs. It provides advice and guidelines to help users systematically 

work through the numerous steps involved in designing, implementing, and analyzing 

results from monitoring programs to meet particular monitoring objectives. The

address for this site is http://www.monitoringadvisor.org/.

9.3 Adaptive Management and RME for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon 

Recovery

9.3.1 Implement the OCCCP Adaptive Management and RME Programs

We applaud Oregon for taking the lead in developing and implementing the RME and adaptive 

management programs in the OCCCP, which are among the most comprehensive and 

informative of any salmon recovery efforts. Recognizing that monitoring programs are expensive

and that budgets are limited, we underscore the importance of continued funding for Oregon’s 

long-term monitoring program to track progress and adjust our efforts to achieve Oregon Coast 

coho salmon conservation and recovery needs.

Long-term monitoring programs

Currently, Oregon implements long-term programs that monitor the status and trend of coastal 

coho salmon populations and their habitat. NMFS intends to collaborate and support these 

programs and, resources permitting, augment these with additional data management and 

modeling. The programs described in the OCCCP, are for the most part still active and critically 

important, however numerous agencies are developing additional methods for monitoring and 

evaluating the status and changes in selected habitats. For example, the NWFSC and several

agencies are developing methods (Beechie et al. 2016) to use remote sensing to track the net 

change of key habitat features (e.g., stream complexity - pools, ponds, and alcoves; connected 

off-channel habitat; riparian condition, and water quality) over time. NMFS expects these 

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 9-6

developments to complement the ongoing work of ODFW and others, and provide valuable 

information for us to consider in future listing determinations (see section 4.3.2). 

9.3.2 Develop life-cycle model to identify and assess potential factors that 

could limit sustainability of Oregon Coast coho salmon, including effects under 

current climate change projection scenarios. 

A multi-stage life-cycle model is being developed by the NWFSC that could improve our 

understanding of the combined and relative effects of actions across the life cycle. This and other

life-cycle models provide a valuable framework for systematically assessing the potential 

response of Oregon Coast coho salmon to alternative management strategies and actions under 

alternative climate scenarios, and help in identifying key research, monitoring, and evaluation 

priorities to improve future decision making.

9.3.3 Management Questions, Draft Hypotheses and Recommendations to Help 

Guide Oregon Coast Coho RME and Adaptive Management 

In order to ensure that we apply the guidance and programs described above to high priority 

recovery issues, we used the uncertainties described previously and the delisting criteria 

presented in Chapter 4 of this Plan to pose several management questions in order to help guide 

future RME and adaptive management, including the following:

• Is the status of the ESU improving?

• What is the net change of key habitat features in key portions of the independent 

populations over time?

• Is water quality (including cold-water refugia) improving?

• Is it a reasonable assumption that limited harvest of natural-origin coho salmon under 

Amendment 13 to the Pacific Fishery Management Council’s Pacific Coast Salmon 

Fishery Management Plan will not impede recovery?

• Are the current RME efforts adequate to answer these questions?

We recommend that ODFW, NMFS, ODEQ, and our other partners consider these questions and 

adapt or revise them as appropriate when implementing this Plan and the OCCCP to ensure that 

RME efforts are focused on the highest priority issues. We also recommend the RME program 

include testable hypotheses related to key management questions. We drafted the following 

hypotheses, questions and recommendations as a starting point. We recognize the need for 

additional resources to implement these recommendations. 

Draft hypothesis #1:

Habitat protection and restoration will increase survival and numbers of Oregon Coast coho 

salmon.

Questions:

1-1 Can the use of remote sensing provide a census, and track the net change, of key 

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 9-7

ecosystem and habitat features?

Draft hypothesis #2:

With the reduction in threats from harvest and hatcheries, if other factors (e.g., freshwater and 

estuarine habitat) are comparable, we expect that the ESU will perform better in the future than it 

did in the 1990s when faced with unfavorable marine and freshwater conditions. This would 

provide evidence related to the resilience of the ESU.

Questions:

2-1 What analyses are available to test this hypothesis?

2-2 Are the current RME programs adequate to test this hypothesis?

RME recommendations:

RME 1. If the current RME is adequate, we should make it a high priority to continue 

funding.

RME 2. If not, we should make it a high priority to provide funding for needed RME to 

test this hypothesis.

Draft hypothesis #3:

The current regulatory mechanisms are adequate to prevent further degradation of Oregon Coast

coho salmon habitat, including water quality.

Questions:

3-1 What does the latest habitat monitoring tell us about habitat trends and the role of 

regulatory mechanisms?

3-2 Are the current RME programs adequate to test this hypothesis?

RME recommendations:

RME 3. If the RME programs are adequate to test hypothesis #2, we should make it a

high priority to continue funding.

RME 4. If not, we should make it a high priority to provide funding for needed RME.

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 9-8

This page intentionally left blank.

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 10-1

10. Literature Cited

Adamus, P. R., J. Larsen, and R. Scranton. 2005. Wetland profiles of Oregon’s coastal

watersheds and estuaries. Part 3 of a hydrogeomorphic guidebook. Report to Coos 

Watershed Association, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and Oregon Department 

of State Lands, Salem.

Adrean, L. 2013. Avian Predation Program 2012 Final Report. Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife, Tillamook, Oregon.

Anthony, J. L. 2016. Email to Robert Walton, September 29, 2016. See: https://nrimp.dfw.

state.or.us/crl/Reports/AnnPro/LCMRpt2014.pdf.

Asch, R. G. 2015. Climate change and decadal shifts in the phenology of larval fishes in the 

California Current ecosystem. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1421946112.

Bakun A. 1990. Global climate change and intensification of coastal ocean upwelling. Science. 

247:198–201.

Bambrick, D., T. Cooney, B. Farman, K. Gullett, L. Hatcher, S. Hoefer, E. Murray, R. Tweten, 

R. Gritz, P. Howell, K. McDonald, D. Rife, C. Rossel, A. Scott, J. Eisner, J. Morris and 

D. Hand. 2004. Critical Habitat Analytical Review Team (CHART) Assessment for the 

Middle Columbia River Steelhead ESU.

Bass, A. 2010. Juvenile coho salmon movement and migration through tidegates. Master’s 

thesis. Oregon State University, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Corvallis.

Beechie, T. and S. Bolton. 1999. An approach to restoring salmonid habitat-forming processes in 

Pacific Northwest watersheds. Fisheries 24: 6-15.

Beechie, T. J., E. A. Steel, P. Roni, and E. Quimby (editors). 2003. Ecosystem recovery planning 

for listed salmon: an integrated assessment approach for salmon habitat. U.S. Dept. of 

Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo., NMFS-NWFSC-58, December 2003.

Beechie, T. J., D. A. Sear, J. D. Olden, G. R. Pess, J. M. Buffington, H. Moir, P. Roni, and M. 

M. Pollock. 2010. Process-based principles for restoring river ecosystems. BioScience 

60:209–222.

Beechie, T., H. Imaki, J. Greene, A. Wade, H. Wu, G. Pess, P. Roni, J. Kimball, J. Stanford, P. 

Kiffney, and N. Mantua. 2012. Restoring salmon habitat for a changing climate. River 

Research and Applications. Online prepublication wileyonlinelibrary.com 

DOI:10.1002/rra.2590.

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 10-2

Beechie, T. J., O. Stefankivr, B. Timpane-Padgham, J. Hall, G. Pess, M. Rowse, M. Liermann, 

K. Fresh, and M. Ford. 2016. Monitoring habitat status and trends in Puget Sound: 

development of sample designs, monitoring metrics, and sampling protocols for 

nearshore, delta, large river, and floodplain environments. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum XX. 2016. 

Bennett, T. R., P. Roni, K. Denton, M. McHenry and R. Moses. 2015. Nomads no more: early 

juvenile coho salmon migrants contribute to the adult return. Ecology of Freshwater Fish. 

24: 264-275.

Black, B. B., W. J. Sydeman, D. C. Frank, D. Griffin, D. W. Stahle, M. García-Reyes, R. R. 

Rykaczewski, S. J. Bograd, and W. T. Peterson. 2014. Six centuries of variability and 

extremes in a coupled marine-terrestrial ecosystem. Science 345:1498-1502.

Blunden, J., and D. S. Arndt (Eds.) 2016. State of the Climate in 2015. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 

97 (8), S1–S275, DOI:10.1175/2016BAMSStateoftheClimate.1.

Bouwes, N., N. Weber, C. E. Jordan, W. C. Saunders, I. A. Tattam, C. Volk, J. M. Wheaton, and 

M. M. Pollock. 2016. Ecosystem experiment reveals benefits of natural and simulated 

beaver dams to a threatened population of steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Scientific 

Reports 6.

Brown, D. 2016. Oregon Water Quality Index: background, analysis and usage. Oregon 

Department of Environmental Quality, Laboratory and Environmental Assessment 

Program. March 9. 5 p.

Buhle, E. R., K. K. Holsman, M. D. Scheuerell, et al. 2009. Using an unplanned experiment to 

evaluate the effects of hatcheries and environmental variation on threatened populations 

of wild salmon. Biological Conservation 142: 2449-2455.

Burke et al. 2013. Multivariate models of adult Pacific salmon returns. PloS ONE. 8: e54134.

Burnett, K. M., G. H. Reeves, D. J. Miller, S. Clarke, K. Vance-Borland, and K. R. Christiansen. 

2007. Distribution of salmon-habitat potential relative to landscape characteristics and

implications for conservation. Ecol. Appl. 17:66−80.

Cairns, M., J. Ebersole, J. Parker, and P. Wigington Jr. 2005. Influence of summer stream 

temperatures on black spot infestation of juvenile coho salmon in the Oregon Coast 

Range. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 134:1471-1479.

Cederholm, C. J. and L. M. Reid. 1987. Impacts of forest management on coho salmon 

(Oncorhynchus kisutch) populations of the Clearwater River, Washington: A project 

summary. In E. O. Salo and T. W. Cundy (eds.), Streamside management: Forestry and 

fishery interactions, p. 373−398. Contribution 57. Univ. Washington, Institute for Forest 

Research, Seattle.

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 10-3

Chapman, D. W. 1962. Aggressive Behavior in Juvenile Coho Salmon as a Cause of Emigration. 

Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 19(6):1047-1080.

Chavez, F. P., and M. Messié. 2009. A comparison of eastern boundary upwelling ecosystems. 

Progress in Oceanography 83:80-96.

Checkley, D. M., and J. A. Barth. 2009. Patterns and processes in the California Current System. 

Progress in Oceanography 83:49-64.

Cheung W. W. L., R. D. Brodeur, T. A. Okey,and D. Pauly. 2015. Projecting future changes in 

distributions of pelagic fish species of Northeast Pacific shelf seas. Prog. Oceanogr. 130: 

19–31. doi: 10.1016/j.pocean.2014.09.003.

Christy, J. 2004. Estimated loss of salt marsh and freshwater wetlands within the Oregon coastal 

coho ESU. Factors for decline report, Oregon coastal coho salmon final assessment. 

Oregon Dept. State Lands, Salem.

Cleaver, F. C. 1951. Fisheries statistics of Oregon. Contribution No. 16. Oregon Fish 

Commission, Portland.

Cluer, Brian. 2016. Personal communications with Robert Walton. October 2016.

Cluer, B., and C. Thorne 2013. A Stream Evolution Model Integrating Habitat and Ecosystem 

Benefits. River Research and Applications. 2013. 

Cogan Owens Cogan, LLC. 2014. Assessment of trends affecting planning for Oregon’s 

estuaries and shorelands. Prepared for the Oregon Coastal Management Program, Oregon 

Department of Land Conservation and Development. March. 101 p.

Craig, B. E., et al. 2014. Rearing in natural and recovering tidal wetlands enhances growth and 

life-history diversity of Columbia Estuary tributary coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) 

population. Journal of Fish Biology, 85: 31-51.

Crawford, B. A., and S. M. Rumsey. 2011. Guidance for Monitoring Recovery of Pacific 

Northwest Salmon & Steelhead listed under the Federal Endangered Species Act. 

Guidance to salmon recovery partners concerning prioritizing monitoring efforts to assess 

the viability of salmon and steelhead populations protected under the Federal Endangered 

Species Act. January 2011. National Marine Fisheries Service, NW Region.

Crozier, L. G., R. W. Zabel, and A. F. Hamlet. 2008. Predicting differential effects of climate 

change at the population level with life-cycle models of spring Chinook salmon. Global 

Change Biology 14:236-249, 1/1/2008.

Dalton, M. M., P. W. Mote, and A. K. Snover (Eds.). 2013. Climate change in the Northwest: 

Implications for our landscapes, waters, and communities. Washington, DC, Island Press.

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 10-4

Daly, E. A., R. D. Brodeur, and L. A. Weitkamp. 2009. Ontogenetic shifts in diets of juvenile 

and subadult coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and Chinook salmon (O. tshawytchsa) in 

coastal marine waters: Important for marine survival? Transactions of the American 

Fisheries Society, 138:1420-1438.

Dent, L., D. Vick, K. Abraham, S. Schoenholtz, and S. Johnson. 2008. Summer Temperature 

Patterns in Headwater Streams of the Oregon Coast Range. Journal of the American 

Water Resources Association (JAWRA) 44(4):803-813. DOI: 10.1111 ⁄j.1752-

1688.2008.00204.x

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) and NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration). 2015. Letter from Jeffrey Payne, Acting Director, Office of Coastal 

Zone Management, NOAA, and Dennis McLerran, Regional Administrator, Region 10, 

Environmental Protection Agency, to Jim Rue, Director, Oregon Department of Land and 

Conservation Development, and Dick Pedersen, Director, Oregon Department of 

Environmental Quality. July 28, 2015. 

Everest, F. H. and G. H. Reeves. 2007. Riparian and aquatic habitats of the Pacific Northwest 

and southeast Alaska: Management history and potential management strategies. General 

Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-692. U.S. Forest Service, Portland, OR.

Federal Interagency Working Group. 2006. Sediment removal from active stream channels in 

Oregon: Considerations for Federal Agencies for the Evaluation of Sediment Removal 

Actions from Oregon Streams. USFWS. March 1, 2006.

Giannico, G., and J. Sauder. 2005. Tide gates in the Pacific Northwest: Operation, types, and 

environmental effects. Oregon Sea Grant ORESU-T-05-001. Oregon State Univ., 

Corvallis.

Gilbert, C. H. 1912. Age at maturity of Pacific coast salmon of the genus Oncorhynchus. Bull. 

U.S. Fish Comm. 32:57–70. 

Good, J. W. 2000. Summary and current status of Oregon’s estuarine ecosystems. In: Oregon 

State of the Environmental Report. Prepared by the SOER Science Panel for the Orgeon 

Progress Board.

Good, T. P., R. S. Waples, and P. Adams (editors). 2005. Updated status of federally listed ESUs 

of West Coast salmon and steelhead. U.S. Commerce., NOAA Technical Memo. NMFSNWFSC-66, 598p. Available at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Publications/Biological-StatusReviews/upload/SR2005-allspecies.pdf. 

Groom, J. D., L. Dent, and L. J. Madsen. 2011a. Stream temperature change detection for state 

and private forests in the Oregon Coast Range. Water Resources Research 47: W01501, 

doi:10.1029/2009WR009061.

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 10-5

Groom, J. D., L. Dent, and L. J. Madsen. 2011b. Response of western Oregon stream 

temperatures to contemporary forest management. Forest Ecology and Management, 

doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2011.07.012

Hoag, D., A. E. Luloff, and D. L. Osmond. 2012. Lessons Learned from the NIFA-CEAP: How 

Farmers and Ranchers Make Decisions on Conservation Practices. NC State University, 

Raleigh, NC.

Holt, R. A., J. E. Sanders, J. L. Zinn, J. L. Fryer, and K. S. Pilcher. 1975. Relation of water 

temperature to Flexibacter columnaris infection in steelhead trout (Salmon gairdneri), 

Coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and chinook (O. tshawytscha) salmon. J. Fish. Res. Board 

Can. 32:1553-1559.

IMST (Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team). 1999. Recovery of wild salmonids in 

western Oregon forests: Oregon Forest Practices Act rules and the measures in the 

Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds. Tech. rep. 1991-1 to the Oregon Plan for 

Salmon and Watersheds. Governor’s Natural Resources Office, Salem.

IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change). 2014. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. 

Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the fifth assessment report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and 

L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 151 pp.

Isaak, D. J., R. F. Thurow, B. E. Rieman, and J. B. Dunham. 2007. Chinook salmon use of 

spawning patches: relative roles of habitat quality, size, and connectivity. Ecological 

Applications 17(2): 352-364.

Jacobson, K., M. Arkoosh, A. Kagley, E. Clemens, T. Collier, and E. Casillas. 2003. Cumulative 

effects of natural and anthropogenic stress on immune function and disease resistance in 

juvenile Chinook salmon. J. Aquat. Anim. Health 15:1-12.

Jacobson, K., D. Teel, D. Van Doornik, and E. Casillas. 2008. Parasite-associated mortality of 

juvenile Pacific salmon caused by the trematode Naanophyetus salmincola during early 

marine residence. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 354:235-244.

Jones, K. K., T. J. Cornwell, D. L. Bottom, S. Stein, H. Wellard Kelly, and L. A. Campbell. 

2011. Recovery of wild coho salmon in Salmon River Basin, 2008-2010. Monitoring 

Program Report Number OPSW-ODFW-2011-10. Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife, Salem, Oregon

Jones, K. K., T. J. Cornwell, D. L. Bottom, L. A. Campbell, and S. Stein. 2014 The contribution 

of estuary-resident life histories to the return of adult Onchorhynchus kisutch. Journal of 

Fish Biology. April 2014.

Jones, R. 2015. 2015 5-Year Review – Updated Evaluation of West Coast Hatchery Programs in 

28 Listed Salmon Evolutionarily Significant Units and Steelhead Distinct Population

Segments for listing under the Endangered Species Act. Memorandum to Chris Yates.

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 10-6

Kemp, P. S., T. A. Worthington, T. E. Langford, A. R. Tree, and M. J. Gaywood. 2012. 

Qualitative and quantitative effects of reintroduced beavers on stream fish. Fish and 

Fisheries 13:158-181.

Kennedy, V. S. 1990. Anticipated effects of climate change on estuarine and coastal fisheries. 

Fisheries 15:16-24.

Kirwan, M. L., G. R. Guntenspergen, A. D’Alpaos, J. T. Morris, S. M. Mudd, and S. 

Temmerman. 2010. Limits on the adaptability of coastal marshes to rising sea level. 

Geophysical Research Letters 37:doi:10.1029/2010GL045489.

Koski, K V. 2009. The fate of coho salmon nomads: the story of an estuarine-rearing strategy 

promoting resilience. Ecology and Society 14(1): 4. [online] URL: 

http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss1/art4/

Kostow, K. 1995. Biennial report on the status of wild fish in Oregon. Oregon Dept. Fish and 

Wildlife, Salem.

Lagasse, P. F., D. B. Simons, and B. R. Winkley. 1980. Impact of Gravel Mining on River 

System Stability. Journal of the Waterway, Port, Coastal and Ocean Division, Vol. 106, 

No. 3, August 1980, pp. 389-404.

Lanier, A. et al. 2014. Oregon Estuary and Shoreland Habitat Atlas Project. Oregon Coastal 

Management Program. Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development. 

Salem, Oregon. 

Lawson, P. W. 1993. Cycles in ocean productivity, trends in habitat quality, and the restoration 

of salmon runs in Oregon. Fisheries 18:6–10.

Lawson, P. W., E. A. Logerwell, N. J. Mantua, R. C. Francis, and V. Agostinni. 2004. 

Environmental factors influencing freshwater survival and smolt production in Pacific 

Northwest coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 61:360−37.

Lawson, P. W., E. P. Bjorkstedt, M. W. Chilcote, C. W. Huntington, J. S. Mills, K. M. S. Moore, 

T. E. Nickelson, G. H. Reeves, H. A. Stout, T. C. Wainwright, and L. A. Weitkamp. 

2007. Identification of historical populations of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) in 

the Oregon coast evolutionarily significant unit. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. 

Memo. NMFS- NWFSC-79.

Lee, K. N. 1999. Appraising adaptive management. Conservation Ecology 3(2): 3. [online] URL: 

http://www.consecol.org/vol3/iss2/art3. 

Leidholt Bruner, K., D. E. Hibbs, and W. C. McComb. 1992. Beaver dam locations and their 

effects on distribution and abundance of coho salmon fry in two coastal Oregon streams. 

Northwest Science 66:218-223. 

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 10-7

Lewis, M. 2015. NOAA Fisheries DSS for Oregon Coast Coho ESU. 2015 Five Year Status 

Review Update. Report by Mark Lewis, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 

Corvallis Research Lab, September 2015.

Lichatowich, J. A. 1989. Habitat alteration and changes in abundance of coho (Oncorhynchus 

kisutch) and Chinook (O. tshawytscha) salmon in Oregon’s coastal streams. In C. D. 

Levings, L. B. Holtby, and M. A. Henderson (eds.), Proceedings of the national 

workshop on effects of habitat alteration on salmonid stocks. Can. Spec. Publ. Fish. 

Aquat. Sci. 105:92−99.

Limburg, K., R. Brown, R. Johnson, B. Pine, R. Rulifson, D. Secor, K. Timchak, B. Walther, and 

K. Wilson. 2016. Rount-the-Coast: Snapshots of estuarine climate change effects. 

Fisheries 41.7:392-394.

Lohn, R. 2003. NMFS Regional Administrator, in testimony before the U.S. Senate Indian 

Affairs Committee. 

Maenhout, J. L. 2013. Beaver ecology in Bridge Creek, a tributary to the John Day River. 

Masters Thesis, Oregon State University.

Malick et al. 2015. Accounting for multiple pathways in the connections among climate 

variability, ocean processes, and coho salmon recruitment in the Northern California 

Current. Canadian Journal of Fisheries.

Mantua, N. J., S. Hare, Y. Zhang, et al. 1997. A Pacific interdecadal climate oscillation with 

impacts on salmon production. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 

78:1069-1079, 6/1/1997.

Martins, E. G., S. G. Hinch, S. J. Cooke, and D. A. Patterson. 2012. Climate effects on growth, 

phenology, and survival of sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka): a synthesis of the 

current state of knowledge and future research directions. Rev. Fish Biol. Fisheries 

22:887-914.

Mattison, L. 2011. Tidegates in Oregon estuaries, Oregon Coastal Atlas data. Department of 

Land and Conservation Development. September. Online at http://www .coastalatlas

.net/metadata/TidegatesinOregonEstuaries,OCMP,2011.htm (accessed August 25, 2016).

McElhany, P., M. H. Ruckelshaus, M. J. Ford, T. C. Wainwright, and E. P. Bjorkstedt. 2000. 

Viable salmonid populations and the recovery of evolutionarily significant units. U.S. 

Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-42.

Merrick, L. 2016. Oregon Water Quality Index data summary Water Years 2006 – 2015 

(October 1, 2006 through September 30, 2015). Oregon Department of Environmental 

Quality, Laboratory and Environmental Assessment Program. March 9. 4 p.

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 10-8

Morrison, W. E., M. W. Nelson, R. B. Griffis, and J. A. Hare. 2016. Methodology for assessing 

the vulnerability of marine and anadromous fish stocks in a changing climate. Fisheries 

41.7:407-409.

Mote, P. W., E. A. Parson, A. F. Hamlet, W. S. Keeton, D. Lettenmaier, N. Mantua, E. L. Miles, 

D. W. Peterson, D. L. Peterson, R. Slaughter, and A. K. Snover. 2003. Preparing for 

climatic change: The water, salmon, and forests of the Pacific Northwest. Clim. Change 

61:45−88. 

Mullen, R. E. 1981a. Estimates of the historical abundance of coho salmon, Oncorhynchus 

kisutch (Walbaum), in Oregon coastal streams and in the Oregon Production Index area. 

Information rep. 81-5. Oregon Dept. Fish and Wildlife, Salem.

Mullen, R. E. 1981b. Oregon’s commercial harvest of coho salmon, Oncorhynchus kisutch 

(Walbaum), 1892−1960. Information rep. 81-3. Oregon Dept. Fish and Wildlife, Salem.

Naiman, R. J., C. A. Johnston, and J. C. Kelley. 1988. Alteration of North American streams by 

beaver. BioScience 38:753-761.

Nickelson, T. E., and P. W. Lawson. 1998. Population viability of coho salmon, Oncorhynchus 

kisutch, in Oregon coastal basins: application of a habitat-based life cycle model. 

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 55:2383-2392.

Nickelson, T. E., J. D. Rodgers, S. L. Johnson, and M. F. Solazzi. 1992. Seasonal changes in 

habitat use by juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) in Oregon coastal streams. 

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 49:783-789.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1993. Listing endangered and threatened species and 

designating critical habitat: Petition to list five stocks of Oregon coho salmon. Federal 

Register [Docket No. 27, October 1993] 58(206) 57770−57771.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1997. Coastal coho habitat factors for decline and 

protective efforts in Oregon. Habitat Conservation Program, 24 April 1997. (Available 

from E. Murray, NMFS Northwest Regional Office 1201 NE Lloyd Blvd. Suite 1100 

Portland, OR 97232.)

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1998. Endangered and threatened species: 

Threatened status for the Oregon coast evolutionarily significant unit of coho salmon. 

Federal Register [Docket No. 950407093-8201-04; ID 063098A, 10 August 1998] 

63(153):42587–42591.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2005a. Policy on the consideration of hatcheryorigin fish in Endangered Species Act listing determinations for Pacific salmon and 

steelhead. Federal Register [Docket No. 040511148–5151–02; I.D. 050304B 28, June 

2005] 70(123) 37204−37216. 

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 10-9

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2005b. National Gravel Extraction Guidance. June 

2005.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2007. Interim Endangered and Threatened Species 

Recovery Planning Guidance Version 1.2. NMFS, Silver Spring, Maryland.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2008. Endangered and threatened species: Final 

threatened listing determination, final protective regulations, and final designation of 

critical habitat for the Oregon coast evolutionarily significant unit of coho salmon. 

Federal Register [Docket No. 071227892–7894–01, February 11, 2008] 73 

(28):7816−7873.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2010. Listing endangered and threatened species: 

Completion of a review of the status of the Oregon coast evolutionarily significant unit of 

coho salmon; Proposal to promulgate rule classifying species as threatened. Federal 

Register [Docket No. 090324348–9655, 01 May 2010] 75:29489−29506.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2011. Final rule. Listing endangered and threatened 

species: Threatened status for the Oregon Coast Coho Salmon evolutionarily significant 

unit. Federal Register Citation 76 FR 35755. June 20, 2011.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2014. Final Recovery Plan for the Southern 

Oregon/Northern California Coast Evolutionarily Significant Unit of Coho Salmon 

(Oncorhynchus kisutch). National Marine Fisheries Service. Arcata, CA.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) 2016a. Endangered Species Act Section 7(a)(2) 

Biological Opinion, and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

Essential Fish Habitat for the Resource Management Plan for Western Oregon. Portland, 

Oregon July 15, 2016. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) 2016b. National Marine Fisheries Service 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7(a)(2) Jeopardy and Adverse Modification of 

Critical Habitat Biological Opinion, ESA Section 7(a)(2) “Not Likely to Adversely 

Affect” determination, and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act Essential Fish Habitat Response for the Implementation of the National Flood 

Insurance Program in the State of Oregon. Portland, Oregon April 14, 2016.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2016c. 2016 5-Year Review: Summary and 

Evaluation of Oregon Coast Coho Salmon. NMFS. Portland, OR. May 26, 2016.

NOAA OCM (Office for Coastal Management) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

2015. Letter from Jeffrey Payne and Dennis McLerran to Oregon Department of Land 

Conservation and Development and Department of Environmental Quality, with 

attachment. July 28, 2015.

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 10-10

Nordholm, K. E. 2014. Contribution of subyearling estuarine migrant coho salmon 

(Oncorhynchus kisutch) to spawning populations on the southern Oregon coast. Master’s 

thesis. Oregon State University, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Corvallis.

NWFSC (Northwest Fisheries Science Center). 2015. Status review update for Pacific salmon 

and steelhead listed under the Endangered Species Act: Pacific Northwest. Seattle. 

December 21, 2015.

OCMP (Oregon Coastal Management Program). 2014. Oregon estuary and shoreland habitat 

atlas project. Final Report of the CZMA 2012 §309. Project of Special Merit NOAA 

Grant NA12NOS4190025. Salem, Oregon. 13 p.

ODA (Oregon Department of Agriculture). 2015. Oregon Department of Agriculture - Water 

Quality Management Program Streamside Vegetation Assessment Tool - User’s Guide 

Version 2. December 29, 2015.

ODEQ (Oregon Department of Environmental Quality). 2007. Streams in Oregon 2004−2006: 

Integrated report on water quality. Online at http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/assessment

/rpt0406.htm (accessed September 13, 2011).

ODEQ (Oregon Department of Environmental Quality). 2015. Statewide Water Quality Toxics 

Assessment Report. April 2015. Web report online at: http://www.deq.state.or.us

/lab/wqm/docs/WQToxicsAssessmentReport.pdf (accessed September 23, 2016).

ODEQ (Oregon Department of Environmental Quality). 2016. Oregon Water Quality Index 

(Water Years 2006-2015) Web Map. Online at http://www.deq.state.or.us/lab

/wqm/wqimain.htm (accessed August 19, 2016).

ODF (Oregon Department of Forestry). 2005. Forest Practice Administrative Rules and Forest 

Practices Act.

ODF (Oregon Department of Forestry). 2010. Northwest Oregon State Forests Management 

Plan: Revised Plan April 2010. April. Salem.

ODF (Oregon Department of Forestry). 2014. Forest Practice Administrative Rules and Forest 

Practices Act. Salem.

ODFW (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife). 1995. Oregon coho salmon biological status 

assessment and staff conclusions for listing under the Oregon Endangered Species Act. 

Attachment to II-B-I to the Draft OCSRI Plan dated 8/20/96. Oregon Dept. Fish and 

Wildlife, Portland.

ODFW (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2005a. Coho assessment part 1: Synthesis. 

Oregon coastal coho assessment. Online at: http: //nrimp.dfw.state.or.us/OregonPlan/

default.aspx?p=152&token= RmluYWwgUmVwb3J0cy9BZ2VuY3kgUmVwb

3J0cy9PREZX# (accessed September 13, 2011). 

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 10-11

ODFW (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2005b. Oregon Coast Coho Assessment: 

Habitat. Appendix report to Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watershed Assessment of the 

Status of Oregon Coastal Coho. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Salem, Oregon.

ODFW (Oregon Dept. Fish and Wildlife). 2005c. Oregon Coastal Coho Assessment, Part 4: 

beaver. The importance of beaver (Castor canadensis) to coho habitat and trends in 

beaver abundance in the Oregon coast coho ESU. Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife, Salem, Oregon.

ODFW (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2007. Oregon Coast Coho Conservation Plan 

for the State of Oregon. Online at http://www.oregon.gov/OPSW/cohoproject/

coho_proj.shtml (accessed September 13, 2011).

ODFW (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2009a. E-mail from Guy Chilton, ODFW, to 

Lance Kruzic, NMFS, dated 22 October 2009 with attachment on the actual releases of 

hatchery fish in the Oregon Coast ESU from 1999−2008. (Available from L. Kruzic, 

NMFS Northwest Regional Office, 2900 Northwest Stewart Parkway, Roseburg, OR 

97471.)

ODFW (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2009b. Oregon Dept. Fish and Wildlife 

comments, Oregon coast coho ESU, NOAA fisheries status review 2009. Oregon Dept. 

Fish and Wildlife, Fish Division, Salem. Online at http://www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;dct=FR%252BPR %252BN%252BO%252BSR%252BPS;

rpp=25;po=0;D=NOAA-NMFS-2010-0112 (accessed May 14, 2012).

ODFW (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2014. Coastal Multi-Species Conservation 

and Management Plan. June 6, 2014.

ODFW (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2015. Oregon fish passage barrier data 

standard data set (OFPBDS), 1999-2015. October. Online at http://nrimp.dfw.state.or.us/

nrimp/default.aspx?pn=fishbarrierdata (accessed August 25, 2016).

ODFW (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2016. Oregon Adult Salmonid Inventory and 

Sampling Project. Estimated Total Population, Ocean Harvest Impact Rate, and 

Spawning Population of Naturally Produced Coho. Found at: http://odfw.forestry.

oregonstate.edu/spawn/pdf%20files/coho/CoastalCohoESUSpawnHarvestSummary.pdf.

ODSL (Oregon Department of State Lands) and ODF (Oregon Department of Forestry). 2011. 

Elliott State Forest Management Plan. November. Salem.

Oregon. 2015. State of Oregon Comments on Oregon Coast Coho Salmon Recovery Plan. Letter 

from Richard Whitman to Robert Walton RE: State of Oregon Comments on the Oregon 

Coast Coho Salmon Recovery Plan. December 31, 2015, with enclosures: State of 

Oregon Comments on the NOAA Fisheries Proposed ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon 

Coast Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and Excel spreadsheet with comments. 

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 10-12

Oregon. 2016. State of Oregon. Multi-Agency Contributions to Oregon Coast (OC) Coho 

Conservation Comments on Oregon Coast Coho Salmon Recovery Plan. Letter from 

Richard Whitman to Barry Thom September 16, 2016 with attachment.

Peterson, W. T., J. L. Fisher, J. O. Peterson, C. A. Morgan, B. J. Burke, and K. L. Fresh. 2014. 

Applied fisheries oceanography: Ecosystem indicators of ocean conditions inform 

fisheries management in the California Current. Oceanogr. 27(4):80-89.

Petro, V. M. 2013. Evaluating "nuisance" beaver relocation as a tool to increase coho salmon 

habitat in the Alsea Basin of the central Oregon Coast Range. Masters Thesis, Oregon 

State University.

Pollock, M., M. Heim, and D. Werner. 2003. Hydrologic and geomorphic effects of beaver dams 

and their influence on fishes. In S. V. Gregory, K. Boyer, and A. Gurnell. (eds.), The 

ecology and management of wood in world rivers, p. 213–233. American Fisheries 

Society, Bethesda, MD.

Pollock, M. M., G. Lewallen, K. Woodruff, C. E. Jordan, and J. M. Castro (eds). 2015. The 

beaver restoration guidebook: Working with beaver to restore streams, wetlands, and 

floodplains. Version 1.0. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 189 

pp.

Pritchard, A. L. 1940. Studies on the age of the coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and the 

spring Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in British Columbia. Trans. R. Soc. 

Can., Ser. 3, 34:99–120.

Reeves, G., F. Everest, and T. Nickelson. 1989. Identification of physical habitats limiting the 

production of coho salmon in western Oregon and Washington. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR245. U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR.

Roni, P. and T. Beechie. 2012. Stream and Watershed Restoration: A Guide to Restoring 

Riverine Processes and Habitats. ISBN: 978-1-4051-9956-8. December 2012, WileyBlackwell.

Roni, P., G. Pess, and T. Beechie. 2013. Fish-habitat relationships & effectiveness of stream 

habitat restoration. Draft report. Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, 

Washington.

Roni, P., T. J. Beechie, R. E. Bilby, F. E. Leonetti, M. M. Pollock, and G. R. Pess. 2002. A 

review of stream restoration techniques and a hierarchical strategy for prioritizing 

restoration in Pacific Northwest watersheds. North American Journal of Fisheries 

Management 22:1–20.

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 10-13

Roni, P., K. Hanson, T. Beechie, G. Pess, M. Pollock, and D. M. Bartley. 2005. Habitat 

rehabilitation for inland fisheries. Global review of effectiveness and guidance for 

rehabilitation of freshwater ecosystems. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No 484, 116 p, 

Rome, Italy.

Roni, P., K. Hanson, and T. Beechie. 2008. Global review of the physical and biological 

effectiveness of stream habitat rehabilitation techniques. North American Journal of 

Fisheries Management 28:856–890.

Rupp et al. 2012. Marine environment-based forecasting of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) 

adult recruitment. Fisheries Oceanography. 21:1-19.

Sandercock, F. K. 1991. Life history of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). In C. Groot and L. 

Margolis (eds.), Pacific salmon life histories, p. 396–445. University of British Columbia 

Press, Vancouver, BC.

Scalzitti, J., C. Strong, and A. Kochanski. 2016. Climate change impact on the roles of 

temperature and precipitation in western U.S. snowpack variability. Geophys. Res. Lett. 

43:5361–5369, doi: 10.1002/2016GL068798.

Sounhein, B., E. Brown, M. Lewis and M. Weeber. 2015. Status of Oregon stocks of Coho 

salmon, 2014. Monitoring Program Report Number OPSW-ODFW-2015-3, Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife, Salem, Oregon.

Stanley, S., J. Brown, and S. Grigsby. 2005. Protecting Aquatic Ecosystems: A Guide for Puget 

Sound Planners to Understand Watershed Processes. Washington State Department of 

Ecology. Publication #05‐06‐027. Olympia, WA.

Stout, H. A., P. W. Lawson, D. L. Bottom, T. D. Cooney, M. J. Ford, C. E. Jordan, R. G. Kope, 

L. M. Kruzic, G. R. Pess, G. H. Reeves, M. D. Scheuerell, T. C. Wainwright, R. S. 

Waples, E. Ward, L. A. Weitkamp, J. G. Williams, and T. H. Williams. 2012. Scientific 

conclusions of the status review for Oregon coast coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). 

U.S. Dept. Commer. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-118, 242 p.

U.S. Department of Commerce. 2014. America is Open for Business. Strategic Plan. Fiscal 

Years 2014-2018. Penny Pritzker, U.S. Secretary of Commerce. https://www.commerce.

gov/sites/commerce.gov/files/media/files/2014/doc_fy2014-2018_strategic_plan.pdf.

Udey, L. R., J. L. Fryer, and K. S. Pilcher. 1975. Relation of water temperature to ceratomyxosis 

in rainbow trout (Salmo gardneri) and coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). J. Fish. Res. 

Board Can. 32:1545-1551.

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016
ESA Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon | 10-14

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture) and USDI (U.S. Department of the Interior). 1994. 

Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management 

Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl: Standards and 

Guidelines for Management of Habitat for Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forest 

Related Species Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. USDA Forest Service 

and USDI Bureau of Land Management, Washington, DC.

Wainwright, T. C., and L. A. Weitkamp. 2013. Effects of climate change on Oregon Coast coho 

salmon: habitat and life-cycle interactions. Northwest Science, 87(3):219-242.

Wainwright, T. C., M. W. Chilcote, P. W. Lawson, T. E. Nickelson, C. W. Huntington, J. S. 

Mills, K. M. S. Moore, G. H. Reeves, H. A. Stout, and L. A. Weitkamp. 2008. Biological 

recovery criteria for the Oregon Coast coho salmon evolutionarily significant unit. U.S. 

Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-91.

Wainwright, T. C., P. W. Lawson, G. H. Reeves, L. A. Weitkamp, H. A. Stout, and J. S. Mills. 

2014. Measuring biological sustainability via a decision support system: Experiences 

with Oregon Coast coho salmon. In K. M. Reynolds, P. F. Hessburg, and P. S. Bourgeron 

(eds.) Making Transparent Environmental Management Decisions: Applications of the 

Ecosystem Management Decision Support System. Springer, Heidelberg. pp. 239-266.

Ward, E. J., J. H. Anderson, T. J. Beechie, G. R. Pess, and M. J. Ford. 2015. Increasing 

hydrologic variability threatens depleted anadromous fish populations. Global Change 

Biol. 21:2500–2509, doi: 10.1111/gcb.12847.

Waters, T. F. 1995. Sediment in streams: sources, biological effects, and control. American 

Fisheries Society Monograph 7, Bethesda, Maryland.

Weitkamp, L. 2016. Climate change section for OC Coho recovery plan.

Weitkamp, L., and K. Neely. 2002. Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) ocean migration 

patterns: insight from marine coded-wire tag recoveries. Can. J. Fish Aquat Sci. 59.

Weitkamp, L. A., T. C. Wainwright, G. J. Bryant, G. B. Milner, D. J. Teel, R. G. Kope, and R. S. 

Waples. 1995. Status review of coho salmon from Washington, Oregon, and California. 

U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-24.

Whitney, J. E., R. Al-Chokhachy, D. B. Bunnell, C. A. Caldwell, S. J. Cooke, E. J. Eliason, M. 

Rogers, A. J. Lynch, and C. P. Paukert. 2016. Physiological basis of climate change 

impacts on North American Inland fishes. Fisheries 41.7:332-345.

Wright, B. E., S. D. Riemer, R. F. Brown, A. M. Ougzin, and K. A. Bucklin. 2007. Assessment 

of harbor seal predation on adult salmonids in a Pacific Northwest estuary. Ecological 

Applications, 17:338-351.

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service December 2016