Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 29489 

Since nothing in the rule requires 

those persons who submit reports 

pursuant to this rule to keep copies of 

any records or reports submitted to us, 

recordkeeping costs imposed would be 

zero hours and zero costs. 

Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3506; delegation of 

authority at 49 CFR 1.50. 

Issued on: May 21, 2010. 

O. Kevin Vincent, 

Chief Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 2010–12664 Filed 5–25–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 223 

[Docket No. 090324348–9655–01] 

RIN 0648–XO28 

Listing Endangered and Threatened 

Species: Completion of a Review of the 

Status of the Oregon Coast 

Evolutionarily Significant Unit of Coho 

Salmon; Proposal to Promulgate Rule 

Classifying Species as Threatened 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS), propose to 

affirm the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA) status for the Oregon Coast (OC) 

Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) of 

coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) by 

promulgating a rule that will supersede 

our February 11, 2008, listing 

determination for this ESU. This 

proposal will also serve as our 

announcement of the outcome of a new 

review of the status of this ESU and 

request for public comment on the 

proposal to promulgate the OC coho 

salmon ESU listing determination. On 

February 11, 2008, we listed the OC 

coho salmon ESU as threatened, 

designated critical habitat, and issued 

final protective regulations under 

section the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA) (February 11, 2008). The ESA 

listing status of the OC coho salmon 

ESU has been controversial and has 

attracted litigation in the past. This 

listing determination is the result of a 

settlement agreement. This new listing 

determination will supersede our 

February 11, 2008, listing determination 

for this ESU. Our February 11, 2008, 

determination establishing protective 

regulations under the ESA and 

designating critical habitat for this ESU 

will remain in effect. 

DATES: Information and comments on 

this proposal must be received by July 

26, 2010. A public hearing will be held 

promptly if any person so requests by 

July 12, 2010. Notice of the location and 

time of any such hearing will be 

published in the Federal Register not 

less than 15 days before the hearing is 

held. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by 0648–XO28 by any of the 

following methods: 

• Electronic Submissions: Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Submit written comments to 

Chief, Protected Resources Division, 

Northwest Region, National Marine 

Fisheries Service, 1201 NE Lloyd Blvd., 

Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97232. 

Instructions: All comments received 

are a part of the public record and will 

generally be posted to http:// 

www.regulations.gov without change. 

All Personal Identifying Information (for 

example, name, address, etc.) 

voluntarily submitted by the commenter 

may be publicly accessible. Do not 

submit Confidential Business 

Information or otherwise sensitive or 

protected information. We will accept 

anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/A’’ in 

the required fields if you wish to remain 

anonymous). Attachments to electronic 

comments will be accepted in Microsoft 

Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe 

PDF file formats only. Information about 

the OC coho salmon ESU can be 

obtained via the Internet at: http:// 

www.nwr.noaa.gov/ or by submitting a 

request to the Assistant Regional 

Administrator, Protected Resources 

Division, Northwest Region, NMFS, 

1201 NE Lloyd Blvd., Suite 1100, 

Portland, OR 97232. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information regarding this 

proposal, contact Eric Murray, NMFS, 

Northwest Region, (503) 231–2378; or 

Marta Nammack, NMFS, Office of 

Protected Resources, (301) 713–1401. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Previous Federal ESA Actions Related 

to Oregon Coast Coho Salmon 

We first proposed to list the OC coho 

salmon ESU as threatened under the 

ESA in 1995 (60 FR 38011; July 25, 

1995). Since then, we have completed 

several status reviews for this species, 

and its listing classification has changed 

between threatened and not warranted 

for listing a number of times. A 

complete history of this ESU’s listing 

status can be found in our February 11, 

2008, final rule (73 FR 7816), classifying 

this ESU as a threatened species. 

To summarize that history, on July 25, 

1995 we first proposed to list the ESU 

as threatened (60 FR 38011). We 

withdrew that proposal in response to 

the State of Oregon’s proposed 

conservation measures as described in 

the Oregon Plan for Salmon and 

Watersheds (62 FR 24588; May 6, 1997). 

On June 1, 1998, the U.S. District Court 

for the District of Oregon found that our 

determination to not list the OC coho 

salmon ESU was arbitrary and 

capricious (Oregon Natural Resources 

Council v. Daley, 6 F. Supp. 2d 1139 (D. 

Or. 1998)). The Court ruled that our 

decision gave too much weight to 

conservation measures with an 

uncertain likelihood of implementation. 

On August 10, 1998, we issued a final 

rule listing the OC coho ESU as 

threatened (63 FR 42587). In 2001, the 

U.S. District Court in Eugene, Oregon, 

set aside the 1998 threatened listing of 

the OC coho salmon ESU (Alsea Valley 

Alliance v. Evans, 161 F. Supp. 2d 1154, 

(D. Or. 2001)). The Court ruled that our 

failure to include certain hatchery fish 

as part of the ESU was not consistent 

with the ESA. Subsequently, we 

announced that we would conduct an 

updated status review of 27 West Coast 

salmonid ESUs, including the OC coho 

salmon ESU (67 FR 6215, February 11, 

2002; 67 FR 48601, July 25, 2002). 

To aid us in these reviews, we 

convened a team of Federal scientists, 

known as a biological review team 

(BRT). For the OC coho salmon ESU, 

NMFS concluded that this ESU was not 

in danger of extinction, but was likely 

to become endangered in the foreseeable 

future. The BRT noted considerable 

scientific uncertainty regarding the 

future viability of this ESU given 

unknowns about ocean conditions for 

coho salmon survival (Good et al., 

2005). They also stated that there is 

uncertainty about whether current 

freshwater habitats are of sufficient 

quality and quantity to support the then 

recent high abundance levels and 

sustain populations during future 

downturns in ocean conditions. 

Considering the BRT’s scientific 

findings and our assessment of risks and 

benefits from artificial propagation 

programs included in the ESU, efforts 

being made to protect the species, and 

the five factors listed under section 

4(a)(1) of the ESA, we proposed to list 

this ESU as threatened (69 FR 33102; 

June 14, 2004). In the June 2004 

proposed rule, we noted that Oregon 

was initiating a comprehensive 

assessment of the viability of the OC 

coho salmon ESU and of the adequacy 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
29490 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

of actions under the Oregon Plan for 

Salmon and Watersheds for conserving 

OC coho salmon. 

In January 2005, the State of Oregon 

released a draft OC coho salmon ESU 

assessment. This assessment concluded 

that the OC coho salmon ESU was 

viable and that measures under the 

Oregon Plan had stopped, if not 

reversed, the deterioration of OC coho 

salmon habitats. We published a notice 

of availability of Oregon’s Draft Viability 

Assessment for public review and 

comment in the Federal Register (70 FR 

6840; February 9, 2005) and noted that 

information presented in the draft and 

final assessments would be considered 

in making the final listing determination 

for the OC coho salmon ESU. We 

forwarded the public comments we 

received on Oregon’s Draft Viability 

Assessment, as well as our technical 

reviews, for Oregon’s consideration in 

developing its final assessment. On May 

13, 2005, Oregon issued its final Oregon 

Coastal Coho Assessment. The final 

assessment included several changes 

intended to address concerns raised 

regarding the sufficiency and accuracy 

of the draft assessment. The final 

assessment concluded that: (1) The OC 

coho salmon ESU was viable under 

current conditions, and should be 

sustainable through a future period of 

adverse environmental conditions 

(including a prolonged period of poor 

ocean productivity); (2) given the 

assessed viability of the ESU, the quality 

and quantity of habitat was necessarily 

sufficient to support a viable ESU; and 

(3) the integration of laws, adaptive 

management programs, and monitoring 

efforts under the Oregon Plan for 

Salmon and Watersheds would 

maintain and improve environmental 

conditions and the viability of the ESU 

into the foreseeable future. 

On June 28, 2005 (70 FR 37217), we 

announced a 6–month extension of the 

final listing determination for the OC 

coho ESU, finding that there was 

substantial disagreement regarding the 

sufficiency or accuracy of the available 

data relevant to the listing 

determination. We solicited additional 

public comment and information. On 

January 19, 2006, we issued a final 

determination that listing the OC coho 

salmon ESU under the ESA was not 

warranted (71 FR 3033). As part of this 

determination, we withdrew the 

proposed ESA section 4(d) regulations 

and critical habitat designation for the 

ESU. In reaching our determination not 

to list the OC coho salmon ESU, we 

found that the BRT’s slight majority 

opinion that the ESU is ‘‘likely to 

become endangered‘‘ and the conclusion 

of the Oregon Final Viability 

Assessment that the ESU was viable 

represented competing reasonable 

inferences from the available scientific 

information and considerable associated 

uncertainty. The difference of opinion 

centered on whether the ESU was at risk 

because of the ‘‘threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of its 

habitat or range.’’ We conducted an 

analysis of current habitat status and 

likely future habitat trends (NMFS, 

2005a) and found that: (1) The 

sufficiency of current habitat conditions 

was unknown; and (2) likely future 

habitat trends were mixed (i.e., some 

habitat elements were likely to improve, 

some were likely to decline, others were 

likely to remain in their current 

condition). We concluded that there was 

insufficient evidence to support the 

conclusion that the ESU was more likely 

than not to become an endangered 

species in the foreseeable future 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range. 

Our decision not to list the OC coho 

salmon ESU was challenged by Trout 

Unlimited. On October 9, 2007, the U.S. 

District Court for the District of Oregon 

invalidated our January 2006 decision 

not to list the OC coho salmon ESU 

(Trout Unlimited v. Lohn, Civ. No. 06— 

01493ST (D. Or., Oct. 9, 2007). The 

Court found that Oregon’s viability 

assessment did not represent the best 

available science as required by the 

ESA, and that we improperly 

considered it in reaching our final 

listing decision. 

In response to the Court’s order and 

pursuant to deadlines established by the 

Court, we issued a final rule to list the 

OC coho salmon ESU as threatened, 

designate critical habitat, and establish 

protective regulations under section 4(d) 

of the ESA on February 11, 2008 (73 FR 

7816). This decision was challenged by 

Douglas County, Oregon and others in 

Douglas County v. Balsiger (Civ. No. 08– 

01547; D. Or. 2008). We reached a 

settlement with the litigants, by which 

we would again review the status of the 

OC coho salmon ESU. This proposal 

announces the results of that review. 

ESA Statutory Provisions 

The ESA defines an endangered 

species as one that is in danger of 

extinction throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range, and a threatened 

species as one that is likely to become 

an endangered species in the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range (16 U.S.C. section 

1532(6),(20)). Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA 

and NMFS’ implementing regulations 

(50 CFR part 424) state that we must 

determine whether a species is 

endangered or threatened because of 

any one or a combination of the 

following factors: (1) the present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; (2) 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4) 

inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; or (5) other natural or 

man-made factors affecting its 

continued existence. We are to make 

this determination based solely on the 

best available scientific and commercial 

information after conducting a review of 

the status of the species and taking into 

account any efforts being made by states 

or foreign governments to protect the 

species. 

We are responsible for determining 

whether species, subspecies, or distinct 

population segments (DPSs) of Pacific 

salmon should be listed as threatened or 

endangered under the ESA. To identify 

the proper taxonomic unit for 

consideration in a salmon listing 

determination, we apply our Policy on 

Applying the Definition of Species 

under the ESA to Pacific Salmon (ESU 

Policy) (56 FR 58612; November 20, 

1991). Under this policy, populations of 

salmon substantially reproductively 

isolated from other conspecific 

populations and representing an 

important component in the 

evolutionary legacy of the biological 

species are considered to be an ESU. In 

our listing determinations for Pacific 

salmon under the ESA, we have treated 

an ESU as constituting a DPS, and hence 

a ‘‘species,’’ under the ESA. 

When considering protective efforts 

identified in conservation agreements, 

conservation plans, management plans, 

or similar documents (developed by 

Federal agencies, state and local 

governments, tribal governments, 

businesses, organizations, and 

individuals) that have not yet been 

implemented, or have been 

implemented but have not yet 

demonstrated effectiveness, we apply 

the NMFS--U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Policy on Evaluating 

Conservation Efforts (‘‘PECE’’; 68 FR 

15100; March 28, 2003). In past ESA 

listing determinations for the OC coho 

salmon ESU, we have applied the PECE 

policy when evaluating new 

conservation efforts. Most of these 

conservation efforts have been 

implemented for several years so it is 

now possible for us to consider the 

available information about their actual 

implementation and effectiveness. 

Where information on program 

effectiveness is not available, we will 

not attribute a conservation benefit to 

the OC coho salmon ESU as resulting 

from the program. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 29491 

Species Life History 

Coho salmon are a wide-ranging 

species of Pacific salmon, spawning and 

rearing in rivers and streams around the 

Pacific Rim from Monterey Bay in 

California north to Point Hope, Alaska; 

through the Aleutian Islands; and from 

the Anadyr River in Russia south to 

Korea and northern Hokkaido, Japan 

(Laufle et al., 1986). From central 

British Columbia south, the vast 

majority of coho salmon adults return to 

spawn as 3–year-olds, having spent 

approximately 18 months in freshwater 

and 18 months in salt water (Gilbert, 

1912; Pritchard ,1940; Sandercock, 

1991). The primary exceptions to this 

pattern are ‘‘jacks,’’ sexually mature 

males that return to freshwater to spawn 

after only 5 to 7 months in the ocean. 

West Coast coho salmon juveniles 

typically leave freshwater in the spring 

(April to June) and re-enter freshwater 

from September to November when 

sexually mature. They spawn from 

November to December and 

occasionally into January (Sandercock, 

1991). Coho salmon spawning habitat 

consists of small streams with stable 

gravels. Summer and winter freshwater 

habitats most preferred by young coho 

salmon consist of quiet areas with low 

flow, such as backwater pools, beaver 

ponds, and side channels (Reeves et al., 

1989). Since coho salmon spend up to 

half of their lives in freshwater, the 

condition of that habitat can have a 

substantial influence on their survival. 

In particular, low gradient stream 

reaches on lower elevation land are 

important for winter survival of juvenile 

coho salmon (Stout et al., 2010). 

The OC coho salmon ESU covers 

much of the Oregon coast, from Cape 

Blanco to the mouth of the Columbia 

River, an area with considerable 

physical diversity ranging from 

extensive sand dunes to rocky outcrops. 

With the exception of the Umpqua 

River, which extends through the Coast 

Range to drain the Cascade Mountains, 

rivers in this ESU have their headwaters 

in the Coast Range. Genetic data 

indicate that OC coho salmon north of 

Cape Blanco form a discrete group, 

although there is evidence of 

differentiation within this area. 

However, because there is no clear 

geographic pattern to the differentiation, 

NMFS has considered coho salmon 

occupying this area to be a single ESU 

with relatively high heterogeneity 

(Weitkamp et al., 1995). 

Unlike some West Coast salmon 

ESUs, OC coho salmon have shown 

wide fluctuations in abundance and 

productivity during the last 50 years. 

Total spawning escapement of naturally 

produced OC coho held steady through 

the 1960s at between approximately 

45,000 to 150,000 fish (Stout et al., 

2010). Spawning abundance declined 

gradually through the 1970s and 1980s, 

with all time lows observed in the early 

1990s. Preharvest abundance has 

fluctuated over time, but the overall 

trend from 1970 through 1999 was 

strongly negative. Both preharvest and 

spawning abundance increased from 

2000 to 2003, with 50–year highs in 

spawning abundance observed in 2002 

and 2003. Those years also represented 

the highest preharvest abundance since 

1976. With the exception of 2007, 

spawning abundance from 2001 through 

2008 has been higher than any level 

since 1969, though preharvest 

abundance has been variable. 

Previous Reviews and Biological 

Review Team Reports 

Above we described the ESA listing 

history of OC coho salmon (Previous 

Federal ESA Actions Related to Oregon 

Coast Coho Salmon). For each of the 

status reviews, consistent with our 

general practice for other salmonid 

species, we convened a biological 

review team (BRT) composed of Federal 

scientists with expertise in salmon 

biology, genetics, fishery stock 

evaluation, marine ecology, or 

freshwater habitat assessment. The first 

BRT was convened in 1995 and 

produced a report detailing its findings 

(Weitkamp et al., 1995). During the first 

status review, the BRT found that 

spawning escapements for the OC coho 

salmon ESU had declined substantially 

during the 20th century and natural 

production was at 5 percent to 10 

percent of production in the early 

1900s. They noted that productivity and 

abundance showed clear long-term 

downward trends. Average spawner 

abundance had been relatively constant 

since the late 1970s, but preharvest 

abundance was declining. Average 

recruits per spawner were also declining 

and average spawner-to-spawner ratios 

were below replacement levels in the 

worst years. OC coho salmon 

populations in most major rivers were 

found to be heavily influenced by 

hatchery stocks, although some 

tributaries may have maintained native 

stocks. Widespread freshwater habitat 

degradation was noted as a risk factor by 

the 1995 BRT. 

We conducted a second status review 

of this ESU in 1996. The BRT 

considered new data on ESU abundance 

and productivity as well as new 

analyses on ESU viability based on 

marine conditions and habitat quality 

(Nickelson and Lawson, 1998). For 

absolute abundance, the 1996 total 

average (5–year geometric mean) 

spawner abundance of OC coho salmon 

(44,500) and corresponding ocean run 

size (72,000) were less than one-tenth of 

ocean run sizes estimated in the late 

1800s and early 1900s, and only about 

one-third of 1950s ocean run sizes 

(Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife, 1995). Long-term trend 

estimates through 1996 showed that for 

escapement, run size, and recruits per 

spawner, trends were negative. The BRT 

also noted concerns about the influence 

of hatchery fish and the quality and 

quantity of habitat available to this ESU. 

In 1996, the BRT concluded that, 

assuming that current conditions 

continued into the future (and that 

proposed harvest and hatchery reforms 

were not implemented), the OC coho 

salmon ESU was not at significant shortterm risk of extinction, but it was likely 

to become endangered in the foreseeable 

future. A minority disagreed, and felt 

that the ESU was not likely to become 

endangered. The BRT generally agreed 

that implementation of the harvest and 

hatchery reforms would have a positive 

effect on the ESU’s status, but they were 

about evenly split as to whether the 

effects would be substantial enough to 

move the ESU out of the ‘‘likely to 

become endangered’’ category, because 

of uncertainty about the adequacy of 

freshwater habitat and trends in ocean 

survival. 

In 2003, we initiated a coast-wide 

status review of Pacific salmon and 

steelhead including OC coho salmon. 

The 2003 BRT (Good et al., 2005) noted 

several improvements in the OC coho 

salmon’s status as compared to the 

previous assessment in 1996. For 

example, adult spawners for this ESU in 

2001 and 2002 exceeded the number 

observed for any year in the past several 

decades, and preharvest run size rivaled 

some of the high abundances observed 

in the 1970s (although well below 

historical levels), including increases in 

the formerly depressed northern part of 

the ESU. Hatchery reforms were 

increasingly being implemented, and 

the fraction of natural spawners that 

were first-generation hatchery fish was 

reduced in many areas, compared to 

highs in the early to mid–1990s. On the 

other hand, the years of good returns 

just prior to 2003 were preceded by 

three years of low spawner 

escapements, the result of three 

consecutive years of recruitment failure, 

in which the natural spawners did not 

replace themselves, even in the absence 

of any directed harvest. These three 

years of recruitment failure were the 

only such instance observed in the 

entire time series considered. Whereas 

the increases in spawner escapement 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
29492 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

just prior to 2003 resulted in long-term 

trends in spawners that were generally 

positive, the long-term trends in 

productivity as of 2003 were still 

strongly negative. 

For the 2003 conclusions, a majority 

of the BRT opinion was in the ‘‘likely to 

become endangered’’ category, with a 

substantial minority falling in the ‘‘not 

likely to become endangered’’ category. 

Although they considered the 

significantly higher returns in 2001 and 

2002 to be encouraging, most BRT 

members felt that the factor responsible 

for the increases was more likely to be 

unusually favorable marine productivity 

conditions than improvement in 

freshwater productivity. 

Current Review of the OC Coho Salmon 

ESU 

During this new review for the OC 

coho salmon we convened a new BRT 

to assist us in carrying out the most 

recent status review for OC coho 

salmon. The BRT was composed of 

Federal scientists from our Northwest 

and Southwest Fisheries Science 

Centers and the USDA Forest Service. 

As part of their evaluation, the BRT 

considered ESU boundaries, 

membership of fish from hatchery 

programs within the ESU, ESU 

extinction risks, and threats facing this 

ESU. The BRT evaluated new data on 

ESU abundance, marine survival, ESU 

productivity, and spatial structure. They 

considered the work products of the 

Oregon/Northern California Coast 

Technical Recovery Team and 

information submitted by the public, 

state agencies, and other Federal 

agencies. They also considered threats 

to this ESU, trends in habitat 

complexity, and potential effects of 

global climate change. 

New Information Available Since the 

Last OC Coho Salmon ESU Status 

Review 

Since our status review of the OC 

coho salmon ESU in 2005 (Good et al., 

2005), new information is available for 

consideration. Good et al. (2005) 

analyzed OC coho adult returns through 

2003. We now have information on 

adult returns and marine survival rates 

through 2009. Also the marking of all 

hatchery-produced fish and increased 

monitoring on the spawning grounds 

have improved our ability to predict the 

effects of hatchery production on the 

long-term viability of the ESU. 

In addition to the new biological data 

available, new analyses are available 

since the 2005 review. These analyses 

were produced by the Oregon/Northern 

California Coast Technical Recovery 

Team (http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/trt/ 

oregonncal.cfm). This team is one of 

several technical recovery teams 

convened in the Pacific Northwest to 

help us develop recovery plans for ESAlisted salmon and steelhead. These 

teams are different from BRTs and focus 

on developing information on historical 

population structure and ESA technical 

products to support development of 

ESA recovery criteria. Technical 

recovery teams are comprised of 

Federal, state, and tribal biologists as 

well as scientists from private 

consulting firms and academia. 

The Oregon/Northern California Coast 

Technical Recovery Team produced two 

reports, Identification of Historical 

Populations of Coho Salmon in the 

Oregon Coast Evolutionarily Significant 

Unit (Lawson et al., 2007) and 

Biological Recovery Criteria for the 

Oregon Coast Coho Salmon 

Evolutionarily Significant Unit 

(Wainwright et al., 2008), which were 

considered by the BRT in their 

assessment of this ESU’s status. Lawson 

et al. (2007) identified 56 historic 

populations that function collectively to 

form the OC coho salmon ESU. 

Populations were identified as 

independent, potentially independent, 

and dependent. This ESU’s long-term 

viability relies on the larger 

independent and potentially 

independent populations (Lawson et al., 

2007). Dependent populations occupy 

smaller watersheds and rely on straying 

from neighboring independent 

populations to remain viable. 

Populations were grouped together to 

form five biogeographic strata-- North 

Coast, Mid-Coast, Lakes, Umpqua, and 

Mid-South Coast. Collectively, the five 

strata form the ESU as a whole. 

Wainwright et al. (2008) used a 

decision support system to assess the 

viability of the OC coho salmon ESU 

and form the basis of recommended 

ESA recovery criteria for this ESU. The 

decision support system is based on the 

population structure identified by 

Lawson et al. (2007) and builds on 

concepts developed in that report. It is 

a computer-based tool that can analyze 

and compare numerous pieces of data 

(Turban and Aronson, 2001). The 

decision support system begins with 

evaluating a number of primary 

biological criteria that are defined in 

terms of logical (true/false) statements 

about biological processes essential to 

the persistence or sustainability of the 

OC coho salmon ESU. These biological 

criteria include population abundance, 

diversity, distribution, and habitat 

quantity and quality. Evaluating these 

primary criteria with respect to 

available observations results in a ‘‘truth 

value’’ in the range from -1 (false) to +1 

(true). Intermediate values between 

these extremes reflect the degree of 

certainty of the statement given 

available knowledge, with a value of 

zero indicating complete uncertainty 

about whether the statement is true or 

false. These primary criteria are then 

combined logically with other criteria at 

the same geographic scale and then 

combined across geographic scales 

(population, strata, and ESU). The end 

result is an evaluation of the biological 

status of the ESU as a whole, with an 

indication of the degree of certainty of 

that evaluation (Wainwright et al., 

2008). The model output describes the 

likelihood that the ESU is persistent and 

sustainable. The model predicts the 

likelihood that the ESU will persist (i.e., 

not go extinct) over a 100–year time 

frame. This includes the ability to 

survive prolonged periods of adverse 

environmental conditions that may be 

expected to occur at least once during 

the 100–year time frame. In the 

sustainability portion of the analysis, 

the model predicts the likelihood that 

the ESU will retain its genetic legacy 

and long-term adaptive potential into 

the foreseeable future (foreseeable future 

is not defined for this criterion), based 

on the stability of habitat conditions and 

other factors necessary for the full 

expression of life history diversity. A 

detailed description of the decision 

support system can be found in 

Wainwright et al. (2008) and the new 

BRT report (Stout et al., 2010). 

ESU Boundaries and Hatchery Fish 

Membership 

The BRT evaluated new information 

related to ESU boundaries, and found 

evidence that no ESU boundary changes 

are necessary (Stout et al., 2010). The 

basis for their conclusion is that the 

environmental and biogeographical 

information considered during the first 

coast-wide BRT review of coho salmon 

(Weitkamp et al., 1995) remains 

unchanged, and new tagging and genetic 

analysis published subsequent to the 

original ESU boundary designation 

continues to support the current ESU 

boundaries. The BRT also evaluated 

ESU membership of fish from hatchery 

programs since the last BRT review 

(Good et al., 2005). In doing so, they 

applied our Policy on the Consideration 

of Hatchery-Origin Fish in ESA Listing 

Determinations (70 FR 37204; June 28, 

2005). The BRT noted that many 

hatchery programs within this ESU have 

been discontinued since the first review 

of coast-wide status of coho salmon 

(Weitkamp et al., 1995). They identified 

only three programs—the North Fork 

Nehalem, Trask (Tillamook basin) and 

Cow Creek (South Umpqua)—that 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 29493 

produce coho salmon within the 

boundaries of this ESU. 

The North Fork Nehalem coho stocks 

are managed as an isolated harvest 

program. Natural-origin fish have not 

been intentionally incorporated into the 

brood stock since 1986 and only adipose 

fin clipped brood stock have been taken 

since the late 1990s. Because of this, the 

stock is considered to have substantial 

divergence from the native natural 

population and is not included in the 

OC coho salmon ESU. The Trask 

(Tillamook population) coho salmon 

stock is also managed as an isolated 

harvest program. Natural-origin fish 

have not been incorporated into the 

brood stock since 1996 when all returns 

were mass marked. Therefore, this stock 

is considered to have substantial 

divergence from the native natural 

population and, based on our Policy on 

the Consideration of Hatchery-Origin 

Fish in ESA Listing Determinations, is 

not included in the OC coho salmon 

ESU. 

The Cow Creek stock (South Umpqua 

Population) is managed as an integrated 

program and is included as part of the 

ESU because the original brood stock 

was founded from the local naturalorigin population and natural-origin 

coho salmon have been incorporated 

into the brood stock on a regular basis. 

This brood stock was founded in 1987 

from natural-origin coho salmon returns 

to the base of Galesville Dam on Cow 

Creek, a tributary to the South Umpqua 

River. Subsequently, brood stock has 

continued to be collected from returns 

to the dam, with natural-origin coho 

salmon comprising 25 percent to 100 

percent of the brood stock nearly every 

year since returning fish have been 

externally tagged. The Cow Creek stock 

is probably no more than moderately 

diverged from the local natural-origin 

coho salmon population in the South 

Umpqua River because of these brood 

stock practices and is therefore 

considered a part of this ESU. 

BRT Extinction Risk Assessment 

The BRT conducted an extinction risk 

assessment for the OC coho salmon ESU 

considering available information on 

trends in abundance and productivity, 

genetic diversity, population spatial 

structure, and marine survival rates. 

They also considered trends in 

freshwater habitat complexity and 

threats to this ESU, including possible 

effects from global climate change. 

The BRT noted that spawning 

escapements in some recent years have 

been higher than the past 60 years. This 

is attributable to a combination of 

management actions and environmental 

conditions. In particular, harvest has 

been strongly curtailed since 1994, 

allowing more fish to return to the 

spawning grounds. Hatchery production 

has been reduced to a small fraction of 

the natural-origin production. Nickelson 

(2003) found that reduced hatchery 

production led directly to higher 

survival of naturally produced fish, and 

Buhle et al. (2009) found that the 

reduction in hatchery releases of Oregon 

coast coho salmon in the mid–1990’s 

resulted in increased natural coho 

salmon abundance. Ocean survival, as 

measured by smolt to adult survival of 

Oregon Production Index area hatchery 

fish, generally started improving for fish 

returning in 1999 (Stout et al., 2010). In 

combination, these factors have resulted 

in the highest spawning escapements 

since 1950, although total abundance 

before harvest peaked at the low end of 

what was observed in the 1970s (Stout 

et al., 2010). 

The BRT applied the decision support 

system of the Technical Recovery Team 

(Wainwright et al., 2008) to help assess 

viability and risk level for this ESU. The 

BRT made a change to the decision 

support system model and reran the 

model with data through 2008. This 

change was to use a different data set to 

determine the abundance level at which 

there are so few adult fish on the 

spawning grounds that they have 

trouble finding mates (which results in 

‘‘depensation’’ or reduced spawning 

success). Depensation is thought to 

occur at spawner densities below four 

fish per mile (Wainwright et al., 2008). 

The Technical Recovery Team had used 

‘‘area-under-the-curve’’ counts for the 

critical abundance criterion in the 

decision support system, while the BRT 

chose to use peak count data. Areaunder-the-curve counts (which refers to 

the total numbers of fish returning over 

the entire adult run time) are almost 

always higher than peak counts because 

they include fish present on the 

spawning grounds over a longer period 

of time. Peak counts are simply the 

highest number of fish observed at any 

one time. The BRT concluded that peak 

abundance counts were more likely to 

capture the potential for depensation 

because the effect occurs for fish that are 

on the spawning grounds at the same 

time (that is, fish need to find mates that 

are on the spawning grounds at the 

same time they are). 

The BRT’s result using the decision 

support system was 0.09 for ESU 

persistence. A value of 1.0 would 

indicate complete confidence that the 

ESU will persist for the next 100 years, 

a value of -1.0 would indicate complete 

certainty of failure to persist, and a 

value of 0 would indicate no certainty 

of either persistence or extinction. The 

BRT therefore interpreted a value of 

0.09 as indicating a low certainty of ESU 

persistence over the next 100 years. The 

decision support system result for ESU 

sustainability was 0.21, indicating a 

low-to-moderate certainty that the ESU 

is sustainable for the foreseeable future. 

These results reflect the model’s 

measure of ESU sustainability and 

persistence under current conditions. 

The overall ESU persistence and 

sustainability scores summarize a great 

deal of variability in population and 

stratum level information on viability. 

For example, although the overall 

persistence score was 0.09, the scores 

for individual populations ranged from 

-1 (Sixes River) to +0.99 (Tenmile 

Lakes), and approximately half (10/21) 

of the independent and potentiallyindependent populations had 

persistence scores greater than 0.25. The 

stratum level persistence scores were 

calculated as the median of the 

population scores. Only the Lakes 

stratum had a very high certainty of 

stratum persistence (0.94), followed by 

the Mid-South Coast (0.19). The MidCoast score for stratum persistence was 

slightly negative (-0.05). Population 

sustainability scores ranged from -1.0 in 

three populations to a high of 0.94 in 

Tenmile Lake. The stratum scores for 

sustainability were less variable. Again, 

the Lakes had the highest score (0.72). 

North Coast, Mid Coast, and Umpqua 

had scores indicating a low to moderate 

certainty of sustainability (0.21 to 0.29), 

while the Mid-South Coast scored 

somewhat higher for stratum 

sustainability (0.50). 

The BRT’s decision support system 

scores suggested a higher certainty of 

sustainability than persistence, a 

counter-intuitive result. (That is, one 

would expect a population that has a 

good chance of maintaining its genetic 

legacy and long-term adaptive potential 

for the foreseeable future to also have a 

good chance of not going extinct in 100 

years. In addition, the BRT was 

concerned that the values for the 

population functionality criterion are 

strongly influenced by basin size, and 

all large populations scored 1.0 

regardless of overall habitat quality 

within the basin. For example, for the 

largest river system in the ESU, the 

Umpqua River, all four populations had 

a functionality score of 1.0, even though 

the BRT had serious concerns about 

habitat conditions for these populations. 

For these and other reasons, the BRT 

considered other methods of assessing 

ESU viability and in particular, habitat 

conditions. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
29494 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Introduction to Habitat Analysis 

The BRT evaluated habitat conditions 

across the range of the OC coho salmon 

ESU in two new analyses. An analysis 

using newly available Landsat images 

(the Landsat Program is a series of 

Earth-observing satellite missions 

jointly managed by NASA and the U.S. 

Geological Survey) mapped patterns of 

forest disturbance over the ESU from 

1986 to 2008, revealing different rates of 

disturbance across basins and strata. A 

second analysis addressed the question 

‘‘is stream habitat complexity 

improving?’’ To answer this question, 

the BRT quantified stream habitat 

complexity over the past 10 years from 

in-stream habitat surveys and analyzed 

for trends. 

Landsat Analysis 

Recent public availability of Landsat 

imagery and the development of tools 

for analysis have made it possible to 

analyze disturbance patterns on a fine 

temporal and spatial scale, allowing a 

comprehensive, uniform picture of 

disturbance patterns that was heretofore 

unavailable. In an analysis conducted 

for the BRT, satellite annual vegetation 

maps of the OC salmon ESU from 1986 

to 2008 were analyzed for patterns of 

disturbance. Disturbance in this analysis 

was removal of vegetative cover, 

primarily through timber harvest or fire. 

The scale of resolution of these analyses 

is approximately 100 meters (328 feet), 

so individual clear cuts and forest 

thinning operations were clearly 

detectable on an annual basis. 

The BRT noted that disturbance was 

wide-spread over the ESU, and varied 

over space, time, and land ownership. 

Some river systems experienced higher 

disturbance than others, with 14 percent 

to 50 percent of individual basins 

disturbed since 1986. Rates of 

disturbance were relatively constant, 

but the most intense disturbance has 

moved from Federal (USDA Forest 

Service and USDI Bureau of Land 

Management) to private non-industrial 

lands, presumably in response to policy 

changes (i.e., implementation of the 

Northwest Forest Plan). 

New Habitat Trend Analysis 

The BRT’s analysis indicates that the 

OC coho salmon ESU is in better 

condition, particularly in terms of total 

abundance, than it was during the 

previous status reviews. However, 

productivity in several recent years was 

remains below replacement, 

highlighting the long-standing concern 

for this ESU that freshwater habitat may 

not be sufficient to maintain the ESU at 

times when marine conditions are poor. 

The BRT noted that the criteria in the 

decision support system do not 

meaningfully evaluate freshwater 

habitat conditions for this ESU. To 

address this deficiency, the BRT 

undertook new analyses of habitat 

complexity across the freshwater habitat 

of this ESU. 

The BRT relied on habitat monitoring 

data from the ODFW Habitat Monitoring 

Program. ODFW has been monitoring 

the wadeable stream (streams that 

would be shallow enough for an adult 

to wade across during survey efforts) 

portion of the freshwater rearing habitat 

for the OC coho salmon ESU over the 

past decade (1998 to present) collecting 

data during the summer low flow period 

(Anlauf et al., 2009). The goal of this 

program is to measure the status and 

trend of habitat conditions throughout 

the range of the ESU through variables 

related to the quality and quantity of 

aquatic habitat for coho salmon: stream 

morphology, substrate composition, 

instream roughness, riparian structure, 

and winter rearing capacity (Moore, 

2008). The ODFW habitat survey design 

is based on 1st through 3rd order streams 

(USGS 1:100k and ODFW 1:24k). The 

sampling design is based on a 

generalized random-tessellation 

stratified survey (Stevens and Olsen, 

2004) that selects potential sample sites 

from all candidate stream reaches in a 

spatially balanced manner. The full 

survey design incorporates a ‘‘rotating 

panel’’ of sampling sites; 25 percent of 

the sites are surveyed annually, 25 

percent every 3 years, 25 percent every 

9 years, and 25 percent new surveys 

each year. This provides a balanced way 

to monitor short-term and long-term 

trends and to evaluate new areas. Due 

to the availability of these data, the BRT 

was able to examine trends in habitat 

complexity over the past 11 years. 

In addition, ODFW provided more 

information to the BRT on the status of 

aquatic habitats in the OC coho salmon 

ESU in the form of presentations, 

comments, and a publication (Anlauf et 

al., 2009). ODFW analyzed trends in 

individual stream habitat attributes, 

including wood volume, percent fine 

sediments and percent gravel. They 

analyzed these attributes separately as 

linear trends by year in the North Coast, 

Mid-Coast, Umpqua River, and MidSouth Coast strata. They also analyzed 

winter rearing capacity for juvenile coho 

salmon with their Habitat Limiting 

Factors Model (HLFM (version 7)), 

which integrates habitat attributes. This 

model emphasizes percent and 

complexity of pools, and amount of offchannel pools and beaver ponds. In the 

ODFW/Anlauf et al. (2009) HLFM 

analysis, ODFW used parametric 

statistical methods to produce a point 

estimate of habitat condition. They 

concluded that for the most part, at the 

ESU and strata scale, habitat for the OC 

coho salmon has not changed 

significantly in the last decade. They 

did find some small but significant 

trends. For instance the Mid-South 

Coast sttatum did show a positive 

increase in winter rearing capacity. 

The BRT was concerned that the 

analysis of trends of individual habitat 

attributes presented by ODFW/Anlauf et 

al. (2009) does not capture interactions 

among the various habitat attributes and 

does not adequately represent habitat 

complexity. In addition, the HLFM 

analysis presented by ODFW/Anlauf et 

al. (2009) used monitoring data for sites 

that had been surveyed only once or 

twice. The BRT concluded that using 

sites that had been visited at least three 

times would enhance their ability to 

discern trends. To address these 

concerns, the BRT: (1) asked ODFW to 

re-run the HLFM using only data from 

sites that had been surveyed at least 

three times during the 1998--2008 

period, and (2) used the ODFW habitat 

monitoring data in a model developed 

by the U.S. Forest Service Aquatic and 

Riparian Effectiveness Monitoring 

Program (AREMP) (Reeves et al., 2004; 

Reeves et al., 2006). For the re-running 

of the HLFM analysis, ODFW estimated 

both summer and winter rearing 

capacity (the ability to predict summer 

rearing capacity was a new function of 

the model not available at the time 

Anlauf et al. (2009) prepared their 

report). In the AREMP model, the BRT 

used the ODFW monitoring program’s 

data for key wood pieces, residual pool 

depth and percent fine sediment to 

generate habitat complexity indicators 

for stream reaches within populations of 

the OC coho salmon. Using several 

models allowed the BRT to compare 

multiple estimates of stream habitat 

complexity. 

The BRT anticipated that there may 

be spatial structure in trends of habitat 

complexity patterns over time due to 

biogeographic differences present at the 

scale of strata. For instance, habitat 

complexity in streams in the Umpqua 

River basin might be expected to change 

at a rate different from the streams in 

the North Coast Basin. This is because 

the Umpqua Basin is further south and 

drains part of the Cascade Mountains, 

while the North Coast streams are at the 

northern extent of this ESU’s range and 

drain only the Oregon Coastal 

Mountains. There are biological, 

geological, hydrological, and 

precipitation pattern differences that 

affect stream habitat conditions in these 

basins. Differences in land-use practices 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 29495 

will also affect changes in habitat 

complexity over large spatial scales. For 

example, the Tillamook State Forest has 

been recovering from a series of fires 

(the ‘‘Tillamook Burn’’) that burned 

355,000 acres (1437 square kilometers) 

between 1933 and 1951, and little 

timber harvest has occurred in that area. 

On the other hand, some areas of the 

South Coast have experienced ongoing 

industrial timber harvest over the past 

20 years. 

In contrast to the analytical method 

employed by ODFW/Anlauf et al. 

(2009), the BRT applied a Bayesian 

mixed regression model to estimate rate 

of change for habitat complexity scores 

at the stratum, population and site 

(habitat monitoring trend site) levels. In 

this analysis, the trends in both the 

AREMP and HLFM (second run of the 

model at the BRT’s request) data were 

negative, indicating there is a high 

likelihood that habitat complexity has 

declined over the past decade. General 

patterns among the AREMP channel 

condition, the HLFM summer rearing 

capacity, and the HLFM winter rearing 

capacity were consistent. All three 

modeling results showed a moderate 

probability that habitat complexity has 

declined across the range of this ESU. 

The North Coast Stratum and Mid-South 

Coast Stratum showed the strongest and 

most consistent declines. For the MidCoast Stratum, the HLFM showed no 

trend in summer and winter juvenile 

rearing capacity, while the AREMP 

showed moderate decline in channel 

condition. The biggest difference 

between model results was observed in 

the Umpqua River stratum. The AREMP 

model showed no trend in channel 

condition, while the HLFM showed a 

strong decline in summer and winter 

juvenile rearing capacity. There was no 

consistent pattern in the differences 

between model results; in the Mid-Coast 

Stratum the AREMP showed declines 

while the HLFM did not. In the Umpqua 

River Stratum, the HLFM showed 

declines while the AREMP did not. 

There were no strong positive trends 

observed in any stratum. The BRT’s 

analyses indicate that habitat 

complexity over the ESU has not 

improved over the past decade. At best, 

habitat complexity has been holding 

steady in some areas while declining in 

others. 

Like the ODFW/ Anlauf et al. (2009) 

trend analysis of individual habitat 

attributes, the BRT’s analyses found that 

habitat complexity across the ESU did 

not improve over the period of 

consideration (1998–2008) regardless of 

the habitat metric chosen for 

comparison. The ODFW/ Anlauf et al. 

(2009) trend analysis based on 

individual habitat attributes found no 

evidence of trends in the Umpqua River 

or Mid-Coast strata. In the BRT analyses, 

results from the AREMP channel 

complexity model do not show a trend 

up or down in the Umpqua River 

stratum. However, the HLFM summer 

and winter rearing capacity analyses 

(second run of the model conducted at 

the BRT’s request) do show negative 

trends in the Umpqua River stratum. 

AREMP channel complexity and HLFM 

model results for the Mid-Coast Stratum 

are mixed, with no consistent indication 

of a trend in either direction. 

In the ODFW/Anlauf et al. (2009) 

trend analysis of individual habitat 

attributes, all of the statistically 

significant trends in habitat complexity 

were observed in the North Coast and 

Mid-South Coast strata (Anlauf et al., 

2009). The results for the North Coast 

Stratum showed a declining trend in 

sediment and wood volume, but an 

increase in gravel. The Mid-South Coast 

Stratum showed an increase in sediment 

but a decreasing trend in the proportion 

of gravel. Although the ODFW /Anlauf 

et al. (2009) analysis of individual 

habitat attributes showed that trends in 

gravel and sediment in the North Coast 

and Mid-South Coast strata are in 

opposite directions, the multivariate 

AREMP channel condition analysis 

performed by the BRT found that both 

North Coast and Mid-South Coast strata 

showed strong negative declines. While 

these results may seem contradictory, 

the observation that individual metrics 

(ODFW trend analysis) behave 

differently than integrated, multivariate 

indicators (AREMP and HFLM analysis) 

is a key point -- fish habitat is 

multidimensional, potentially declining 

even as components such as large wood 

or sediment increase at different spatial 

scales. 

The ODFW/Anlauf et al. (2009) HLFM 

model run showed an 8.9 percent 

annual increase in winter rearing 

capacity in the Mid-South Coast. The 

BRT’s results (including the second 

running of the HLFM model by ODFW) 

showed that the Mid-South Coast 

Stratum had the most certain negative 

trends for AREMP channel condition 

and HLFM summer and winter rearing 

capacity analyses. Compared to the 8.9 

percent estimated increase in winter 

capacity by ODFW/Anlauf et al. (2009) 

for the Mid-South Coast Stratum, the 

second run of the HLFM summer and 

winter rearing model estimated a 

summer capacity decline of 8 percent 

and a winter capacity decline of 3 

percent. 

There are several important 

differences between the BRT analyses 

and the ODFW/Anlauf et al. (2009) 

analyses. These differences are likely 

responsible for different conclusions. 

First, the habitat variables considered in 

the BRT analyses represented aggregate 

indices (winter rearing capacity score, 

summer rearing capacity score, or 

AREMP Channel Condition score). One 

portion of the ODFW/Anlauf et al. 

(2009) trend analysis examined trends 

only in measured individual habitat 

variables (wood volume, fine sediment, 

gravel), although the HLFM winter 

rearing capacity analysis produced an 

aggregate index. The second difference 

is that for the HLFM winter rearing 

capacity analysis, ODFW/ Anlauf et al. 

(2009) utilized the entire suite of 

sampled sites for wood volume, fine 

sediment and gravel, and the second run 

of the HLFM winter and summer rearing 

capacity analysis used a subset of sites 

sampled (only those sites that had been 

sampled 3 times). A third important 

difference is the model framework used. 

The BRT analysis was done using 

Bayesian methods as opposed to the 

parametric statistical methods employed 

by ODFW. 

In summary, the BRT considered the 

quality of available freshwater habitat 

using revised data sets from ODFW. The 

BRT examined evidence of trends in 

complexity, with the understanding that 

an increasing trend would indicate that 

stream habitat was improving. The BRT 

found that, for the most part, stream 

complexity is decreasing. In addition, 

The BRT examined patterns of 

disturbance from Landsat images and 

found that timber harvest activities are 

continuing in the ESU, with intensity 

varying among basins. The BRT noted 

that legacy effects of splash damming, 

log drives, and stream cleaning 

activities still affect the amount and 

type of wood and gravel substrate 

available and, therefore, stream 

complexity across the ESU (Miller, 

2009; Montgomery et al., 2003). Road 

densities remain high and affect stream 

quality through hydrologic effects like 

runoff and siltation and by providing 

access for human activities. Beaver 

(Castor canadensis) activities, which 

produce the most favorable coho salmon 

rearing habitat especially in lowland 

areas, appear to be reduced. Stream 

habitat restoration activities may be 

having a short-term positive effect in 

some areas, but the quantity of impaired 

habitat and the rate of continued 

disturbance outpace agencies’ ability to 

conduct effective restoration. 

BRT Extinction Risk Conclusions 

In order to reach its final extinction 

risk conclusions, the BRT used a ‘‘risk 

matrix’’ as a method to organize and 

summarize the professional judgment of 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
29496 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

a panel of knowledgeable scientists with 

regard to extinction risk of the species. 

This approach is described in detail by 

Wainright and Kope (1999) and has 

been used for over 10 years in our 

Pacific salmonid and other marine 

species status reviews. In this risk 

matrix approach, the collective 

condition of individual populations is 

summarized at the ESU level according 

to four demographic risk criteria: 

abundance, growth rate/productivity, 

spatial structure/connectivity, and 

diversity. These viability criteria, 

outlined in McElhany et al. (2000), 

reflect concepts that are well founded in 

conservation biology and are generally 

applicable to a wide variety of species. 

These criteria describe demographic 

risks that individually and collectively 

provide strong indicators of extinction 

risk. The summary of demographic risks 

and other pertinent information 

obtained by this approach is then 

considered by the BRT in determining 

the species’ overall level of extinction 

risk. This analysis process is described 

in detail in the BRT’s report (Stout et al., 

2010). The scoring for the risk criteria 

correspond to the following values: 1– 

very low risk, 2–low risk, 3–moderate 

risk, 4–high risk, 5–very high risk. 

After reviewing all relevant biological 

information for the species, each BRT 

member assigns a risk score to each of 

the four demographic criteria. The 

scores are tallied (means, modes, and 

range of scores), reviewed, and the range 

of perspectives discussed by the BRT 

before making its overall risk 

determination. To allow individuals to 

express uncertainty in determining the 

overall level of extinction risk facing the 

species, the BRT adopted the 

‘‘likelihood point’’ method, often 

referred to as the ‘‘FEMAT’’ method 

because it is a variation of a method 

used by scientific teams evaluating 

options under the Northwest Forest Plan 

(FEMAT 1993). In this approach, each 

BRT member distributes ten likelihood 

points among the three species’ 

extinction risk categories, reflecting 

their opinion of how likely that category 

correctly reflects the species true status. 

This method has been used in all status 

reviews for anadromous Pacific 

salmonids since 1999, as well as in 

reviews of Puget Sound rockfishes 

(Stout et al., 2001b), Pacific herring 

(Stout et al., 2001a; Gustafson et al., 

2006), Pacific hake, walleye pollock, 

Pacific cod (Gustafson et al., 2000), 

eulachon (Gustafson et al., 2008) and 

black abalone (Butler et al., 2008). 

For the OC coho salmon ESU, the BRT 

conducted both the risk matrix analysis 

and the overall extinction risk 

assessment under two different sets of 

assumptions. Case 1: The BRT evaluated 

extinction risk based on the 

demographic risk criteria (abundance, 

growth rate, spatial structure and 

diversity) currently exhibited by the 

species, assuming that the threats 

influencing ESU status would continue 

unchanged into the future. This case in 

effect assumes that all of the threats 

evaluated by the BRT are fully manifest 

in the current ESU status and will in 

aggregate neither worsen nor improve in 

the future. Case 2: The BRT also 

evaluated extinction risk based on the 

demographic risk criteria currently 

exhibited by the species, taking into 

account predicted changes to threats 

that were not yet manifest in the current 

demographic status of the ESU. In effect, 

this scenario asked the BRT to evaluate 

whether threats to the ESU would 

lessen, worsen, or remain constant 

compared to current conditions. 

Information gathered by the BRT about 

current and future threats was evaluated 

to help guide its risk voting under this 

scenario. 

The risk matrix scores differed 

considerably for the two cases. When 

only current biological status was 

considered (Case 1), the median score 

for each demographic risk criterion was 

2 (low risk) and the mean scores ranged 

from 2 to 2.47. Current abundance was 

rated as less of a risk factor than 

productivity, spatial structure, and 

diversity. When future conditions were 

taken into account (Case 2), median 

scores increased to 3 (moderate risk) for 

each factor, and mean scores ranged 

from 2.8 for abundance to 3.27 for 

productivity. BRT members also 

separately scored the overall risk 

associated with threats that they 

believed were not yet manifest in 

current demographic criteria (Case 2), 

and the median score for these threats 

was 4 (high risk). 

The assessment of overall extinction 

risk for the OC coho salmon ESU also 

differed substantially depending on 

what was assumed about the future. 

When only current biological status was 

considered (Case 1), the overall 

assessment was closely split between 

low risk (49 percent of the likelihood 

points) and moderate risk (44 percent), 

with high risk receiving 7 percent of the 

likelihood points. The BRT’s evaluation 

of risk under this scenario largely 

reflects the results of the decision 

support system, which the BRT 

interpreted as indicating considerable 

uncertainty about ESU status under 

current conditions. When the BRT 

evaluated risk while taking into account 

future changes to threats (Case 2), the 

assessment became more pessimistic 

with 25 percent of the likelihood points 

falling in low risk, 54 percent in 

moderate risk, and 21 percent in high 

risk. The increase in the proportion of 

the likelihood points in the moderate 

and high risk categories reflects the 

BRT’s conclusions that, on balance, the 

threats facing OC coho salmon are likely 

to grow more severe in the future. 

Under the assumption that current 

conditions continue into the future 

(Case 1), the BRT’s primary concern was 

that current freshwater habitat 

conditions may not be able to sustain 

the ESU in the face of normal 

fluctuations in marine survival. The 

BRT noted that the legacy of past forest 

management practices combined with 

lowland agriculture and urban 

development has resulted in a situation 

in which the areas of highest intrinsic 

potential habitat capacity are now 

degraded. The BRT decision was also 

influenced by its new stream 

complexity trend analysis and its new 

Landsat-based forest disturbance 

analysis. The results of these analyses 

lend support to the conclusion that the 

effects of historic and on-going land 

management activities are still 

negatively influencing stream habitat 

complexity. 

Like previous BRTs evaluating the 

status of OC coho salmon, the most 

recent BRT was also concerned about 

the long-term downward trend in 

productivity of this ESU. The BRT noted 

that natural spawning abundance and 

total (pre-harvest) adult abundance has 

increased markedly over the past decade 

due to a combination of improved ocean 

survival, lower harvest rates, and 

reduced hatchery production. However, 

the BRT was concerned that much of the 

increase in pre-harvest adult abundance 

could be attributed to increases in 

marine survival that are expected to 

fluctuate naturally, with a smaller 

proportion of the increase attributable to 

hatchery and harvest recovery actions 

(Buhle et al., 2009). The BRT noted that 

the reduction in risks from hatchery and 

harvest are expected to help buffer the 

ESU when marine survival returns to a 

lower level, likely resulting in improved 

status compared to the situation a 

decade ago. On balance, however, the 

BRT was uncertain about the ESU’s 

ability to survive another prolonged 

period of low ocean survivals, and this 

translated into greater concern about the 

overall risk to the ESU under current 

conditions. 

The BRT was more certain about 

overall risk status when taking into 

account predictable changes to the 

threats facing the population, with a 

clear majority of the likelihood points 

falling in the moderate or high risk 

categories. The BRT was particularly 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 29497 

concerned that global climate change 

will lead to a long-term downward trend 

in both freshwater and marine coho 

salmon habitat compared to current 

conditions in this ESU. The BRT 

evaluated the available scientific 

information on the effects of predicted 

climate change on the freshwater and 

marine environments inhabited by OC 

coho salmon. Although there was 

considerable uncertainty about the 

magnitude of most effects, the BRT was 

concerned that most changes associated 

with climate change are expected to 

result in poorer habitat conditions for 

OC coho salmon than exist currently. 

Some members of the BRT noted that 

freshwater effects of climate change may 

not be as severe on the Oregon coast as 

in other parts of the Pacific Northwest, 

and the distribution of overall risk 

scores reflects this. 

In addition to effects due to global 

climate change, the BRT was also 

concerned that freshwater habitat for the 

ESU would continue to degrade from 

current conditions due to local effects. 

The BRT noted that despite increased 

habitat protections on Federal lands 

with the implementation of the 

Northwest Forest Plan in the mid–1990s 

(FEMAT, 1993), timber harvest activities 

have increased on private industrial 

lands. The BRT’s new habitat analysis 

indicates that stream habitat complexity 

has decreased since 1998. Conversion of 

forests to urban uses was also a concern 

(e.g., Kline et al., 2001), particularly for 

the North Coast, mid-south Coast, and 

Umpqua. The BRT was also concerned 

that a lack of protection for beaver 

would result in downward trends for 

this important habitat forming species. 

Some BRT members felt that the data 

indicating that freshwater habitat 

conditions were likely to worsen from 

current levels in the future were 

equivocal, and the distribution of risk 

matrix and overall threats scores reflects 

this uncertainty. 

The BRT did note some ongoing 

positive changes that are likely to 

become manifest in abundance trends 

for the ESU in the future. In particular, 

hatchery production continues to be 

reduced with the cessation of releases in 

the North Umpqua and Salmon River 

populations, and the BRT expects that 

the near-term ecological benefits from 

these reductions would result in 

improved survival for these populations 

in the future. In addition, the BRT 

expected that reductions in hatchery 

releases that have occurred over the past 

decade would continue to produce some 

positive effects on the survival of the 

ESU in the future, due to the time it may 

take for past genetic impacts to become 

attenuated. The BRT also concluded 

that stream habitat conditions on 

Federal land would ultimately improve 

in the future under the Northwest Forest 

Plan, even though their analysis 

indicated an apparent decrease in 

habitat quality over the last decade. The 

BRT concluded that, when future 

conditions are taken into account, the 

OC coho salmon ESU as a whole is at 

moderate risk of extinction. The BRT 

therefore did not need to explicitly 

address whether the ESU was at risk in 

only a significant portion of its range. 

Consideration of ESA section 4(a)(1) 

Factors 

The Present or Threatened Destruction, 

Modification, or Curtailment of its 

Habitat or Range 

Our previous Federal Register Notices 

and BRT reports (Weitkamp et al, 1995; 

Good et al., 2005), as well as numerous 

other reports and assessments (ODFW, 

1995; State of Oregon, 2005; State of 

Oregon 2007), have reviewed in detail 

the effects of historical and ongoing 

land management practices that have 

altered OC coho salmon habitat. The 

BRT reviewed the factors that have led 

to the current degraded condition of OC 

coho salmon habitat. We will briefly 

summarize this information here and 

direct readers to the BRT report (Stout 

et al., 2010) for more detail. 

Historical and ongoing timber harvest 

and road building have reduced stream 

shade, increased fine sediment levels, 

reduced levels of instream large wood, 

and altered watershed hydrology. 

Historical splash damming removed 

stream roughness elements such as 

boulders and large wood and in some 

cases scoured streams to bedrock. Fish 

passage has been blocked in many 

streams by improperly designed 

culverts. Fish passage has been 

restricted in some estuary areas by 

tidegates. 

Urbanization has resulted in loss of 

streamside vegetation and added 

impervious surfaces, which alter normal 

hydraulic processes. Agricultural 

activities have removed stream-side 

vegetation. Building of dikes and levees 

has disconnected streams from their 

floodplains and results in loss of natural 

stream sinuosity. Stormwater and 

agricultural runoff reaching streams is 

often contaminated by hydrocarbons, 

fertilizers, pesticides, and other 

contaminants. In the Umpqua River 

basin, diversion of water for agriculture 

reduces base stream flow and may result 

in higher summer stream temperatures. 

Conversion of forest and agricultural 

land to urban and suburban 

development is likely to result in an 

increase in these effects in the future 

(Burnett et al., 2007). Loss of beavers 

from areas inhabited by the OC coho 

salmon has led to reduced stream 

habitat complexity and loss of 

freshwater wetlands. The BRT reports 

that the amount of tidal wetland habitat 

available to support coho salmon 

rearing has declined substantially 

relative to historical estimates across all 

of the biogeographic strata (Stout et al., 

2010). Instream and off-channel gravel 

mining has removed natural stream 

substrates and altered floodplain 

function. 

Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

Historical harvest rates of OC coho 

salmon ranged from 60 percent to 90 

percent from the 1960s into the 1980s 

(Stout et al., 2010). Modest harvest 

reductions were achieved in the late 

1980s, but rates remained high until a 

crisis was perceived, and most directed 

coho salmon harvest was prohibited in 

1994 (Stout et al., 2010). The Pacific 

Fishery Management Council adopted 

Amendment 13 to its Salmon Fishery 

Management Plan in 1998. This 

amendment was part of the Oregon Plan 

for Salmon and Watersheds and was 

designed to reduce harvest of OC coho 

salmon. Current harvest rates are based 

on parental spawner escapements and 

predicted marine survival and range 

from minimal harvest (0 to 8 percent) to 

45 percent. 

A few small freshwater fisheries on 

OC coho salmon have been allowed in 

recent years based on the provision in 

Amendment 13 that terminal fisheries 

can be allowed on strong populations as 

long as the overall exploitation rate for 

the ESU does not exceed the 

Amendment 13 allowable rate, and that 

escapement is not reduced below full 

seeding of the best available habitat. We 

have approved these fisheries with the 

condition that the methodologies used 

by the ODFW to predict population 

abundances and estimate full seeding 

levels are presented to the Pacific 

Fishery Management Council for review 

and approval. 

While historical harvest management 

may have contributed to OC coho 

declines, the BRT concluded that the 

decreases in harvest mortalities 

described above have reduced this 

threat to the ESU and that further 

harvest reductions would not further 

reduce the risk to ESU persistence. 

Disease or Predation 

The ODFW (2005), in its assessment 

of OC coho salmon, asserted that disease 

is not an important consideration in the 

recovery of this ESU. However, the BRT 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
29498 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

noted that Nanophyetus salmincola (a 

parasitic trematode) may be a source of 

mortality for juvenile OC coho salmon. 

Jacobson (2008) reports that annual 

occurrence of N. salmincola in yearling 

coho salmon caught in ocean tows off 

the coast of Oregon were 62--78 percent. 

Yearling coho salmon had significantly 

higher intensities of infection and 

higher infection in natural-origin versus 

hatchery juveniles, presumably due to 

the greater exposure to metacercaria 

(encysted resting or maturing stage of 

trematode parasites) in natal streams. 

Occurrence and intensities in yearling 

coho salmon caught in September were 

significantly lower (21 percent) than in 

those caught in May or June in 3 of 4 

years. This suggests parasite-associated 

host mortality during early ocean 

residence for yearling coho salmon. 

Pearcy (1992) hypothesized that ocean 

conditions (food and predators) are 

important to marine mortality, 

especially soon after juvenile coho 

salmon enter the ocean. This is the time 

period that Jacobson et al. (2008) 

observed the loss of highly infected 

juveniles. Jacobson hypothesized that 

high levels of infection may lead to 

behavioral changes in the fish and thus 

make the juveniles more susceptible to 

predation. 

Cairns et al. (2006) investigated the 

influence of summer stream 

temperatures on black spot infestation 

of juvenile coho salmon in the West 

Fork of the Smith River, Oregon, a 

stream system occupied by OC coho 

salmon. Their studies show that 

‘‘although other environmental factors 

may affect the incidence of black spot, 

elevated water temperature is clearly 

associated with higher infestation rates 

in the West Fork Smith River stream 

network.’’ This may be an important 

issue for coho salmon juveniles as many 

of the streams they 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 by parasites may become 

an increasingly important stressor both 

for freshwater and marine survival 

(Stout et al., 2010). 

Parasitism and disease were not 

considered important factors for decline 

in previous BRT reviews for OC coho 

salmon (Weitkamp et al., 1994; Good et 

al., 2005). However, some information 

considered by the BRT suggests that 

they may become more important as 

temperatures rise due to global climate 

change and may become important risks 

for juvenile fish in the early ocean-entry 

stage of the lifecycle. 

The BRT identified several bird 

species and marine mammals that prey 

on OC coho salmon, but concluded that 

these predators are not a significant 

threat. Salmonids have co-evolved with 

predators and have survived and 

remained productive for thousands of 

years in spite of the large numbers of 

predators. Because of the abundance 

and visibility of marine mammal 

predators on the Oregon coast, and their 

interactions with fishermen and other 

users of coastal resources, there is a 

perception that reducing predation by 

harbor seals and California sea lions is 

important for the restoration of OC coho 

salmon (Smith et al., 1997). However, 

the BRT listed two sources (Botkin et 

al., 1995; IMST, 1998) that concluded 

that predation was a minor threat to the 

OC coho salmon ESU. Similarly, in their 

2005 Oregon State Coho Assessment, 

the ODFW (State of Oregon, 2005) 

reported that ‘‘natural predation by 

pinnipeds or seabirds has not been a 

significant cause in the decline of 

salmonid stocks at the ESU scale.’’ 

The BRT was more concerned about 

predation on OC coho salmon from 

introduced warm-water fishes such as 

smallmouth bass (Micropterus 

dolomieu) and largemouth bass 

(Micropterus salmoides). These 

predatory fish are especially abundant 

in the streams and lakes of the Lakes 

Stratum and the lower Umpqua River. 

The BRT concluded that predation and 

competition from exotic 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 

OC coho salmon by increasing 

predation. 

The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

Existing regulations governing ocean 

and tributary coho salmon harvest have 

dramatically improved the ESU’s 

likelihood of persistence. These 

regulations are unlikely to be weakened 

in the future because they have been 

developed and negotiated in a 

comprehensive process by the Pacific 

Fishery Management Council and the 

State of Oregon. Many hatchery 

practices that were detrimental to the 

long-term viability of this ESU have 

been discontinued. As the BRT notes in 

its report, some of the benefits of these 

management changes are being realized 

as improvements in ESU abundance. 

However, trends in freshwater habitat 

complexity throughout many areas of 

this ESU’s range remain negative (Stout 

et al., 2010). We remain concerned that 

regulation of some habitat altering 

actions is insufficient to provide habitat 

conditions that support a viable ESU. In 

the Efforts Being Made to Protect the 

Species section of this document, we 

present our analysis of the current 

efforts to protect OC coho salmon 

freshwater and estuarine habitat. 

Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting its Continued Existence 

Ocean conditions in the Pacific 

Northwest exhibit patterns of recurring, 

decadal-scale variability (including the 

Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the El 

Nino Southern Oscillation), and 

correlations exist between these oceanic 

changes and salmon abundance in the 

Pacific Northwest (Stout et al., 2010). It 

is also generally accepted that for at 

least 2 decades, beginning about 1977, 

marine productivity conditions were 

unfavorable for the majority of salmon 

and steelhead populations in the Pacific 

Northwest, but this pattern broke in 

1998, after which marine productivity 

has been quite variable (Stout et al., 

2010). In considering these shifts in 

ocean conditions, the BRT was 

concerned about 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. OC 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 periods of poor ocean survival 

when their freshwater, estuary, and 

nearshore marine habitats are degraded 

(Stout et al., 2010). 

The potential effects of global climate 

change are also a concern for this 

species. The BRT noted that there is 

considerable uncertainty regarding the 

effects of climate change on OC coho 

salmon and their freshwater, marine, 

and estuarine habitat. Their assessment 

can be found in Appendix C of its report 

(Stout et al., 2010). Although the BRT 

used the best information available to 

predict the possible effects of climate 

change on this ESU, both the BRT and 

other authors (Roessig et al., 2004) note 

that aquatic ecosystems are complex 

and our understanding of their function 

is incomplete. Therefore, the BRT’s 

analysis should be considered 

qualitative in nature and involves some 

uncertainty. A summary of the BRT’s 

conclusions follows. 

A shift to a warmer/drier climate in 

the Pacific Northwest is generally 

expected to have negative effects on 

salmon survival (Mote et al., 2003; Stout 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 29499 

et al., 2010), and some effects have 

already been observed (ISAB 2007; 

Crozier et al., 2008; Mantua et al., 2009). 

Warmer/drier years associated with the 

warm phase of the El Nino Southern 

Oscillation or the Pacific Decadal 

Oscillation lead to below-average 

snowpack, streamflow, flooding, salmon 

survival, and forest growth, and aboveaverage forest fire risk (Mote et al., 

2003). Similar climate patterns 

predicted by climate-change models can 

be expected to have similar effects on 

salmon (Stout et al., 2010). A number of 

studies (Francis & Mantua, 2003; ISAB, 

2007; Crozier et al., 2008; Mantua et al., 

2009) have identified ways by which 

climate variation or trends influence 

salmon sustainability, including 

metabolic costs, disease resistance, 

shifts in seasonal timing of important 

life-history events (upstream migration, 

spawning, emergence, outmigration), 

changes in growth and development 

rates, changes in freshwater habitat 

structure, and changes in the structure 

of ecosystems on which salmon depend 

(especially in terms of food supply and 

predation risk). Salmon are affected 

throughout their life cycle, including 

freshwater, estuarine and marine 

habitats (Stout et al., 2010). 

In freshwater habitats, increases in 

temperature (Mote et al., 2008), 

decreases in snowpack (Mote et al., 

2003; Karl et al., 2009), and alterations 

in precipitation patterns (Mote et al., 

2003) are expected to have direct effects 

on OC coho salmon freshwater habitat 

such as increasing stream temperature, 

altering stream flow patterns, and 

increasing flood frequency (ISAB, 2007). 

Indirect effects on freshwater salmon 

habitat may occur as a result of 

increased forest fires, decreased tree 

growth rates, and increased frequency of 

damaging insect outbreaks (such as the 

recent mountain pine beetle attacks) 

(Mote et al., 2003; Peterson et al., 2008; 

Karl et al., 2009). Climate change may 

also affect forest composition, which in 

turn would affect stream habitat across 

the range of this ESU, although these 

types of effects cannot be predicted with 

certainty (Stout et al., 2010). 

In addition to potential effects in the 

freshwater portion of their habitat, 

changes in ocean conditions as a result 

of climate change are likely to have a 

substantial effect on OC coho salmon. 

Warming sea temperatures and changes 

in wind patterns may affect upwelling 

in the Pacific Ocean off the Northwest 

coast, and upwelling is a main 

determinant of marine food supply for 

juvenile salmon. Recent strong El Ninos 

and other anomalous conditions (such 

as occurred in summer 2005) may serve 

as indicators of potential impacts of 

climate change. In both cases, the spring 

transition was delayed, surface waters 

became anomalously warm, and 

nutrient levels were low, which had 

implications for the entire marine 

ecosystem including decreased salmon 

survival (Brodeur et al., 2005; Emmett et 

al., 2006; Schwing et al., 2006; Bograd 

et al., 2009). 

Warming sea temperatures may also 

result in changes in zooplankton 

communities (Mackas et al., 2007) and 

northward range expansions of marine 

predators that may consume OC coho 

salmon. For instance, in recent years, 

large numbers of Humboldt squid 

(Dosidicus gigas) have been observed off 

the coast of Oregon. This potential 

predator of juvenile salmon is typically 

not found this far north and may 

represent a new source of predation on 

juvenile OC coho salmon. 

Ocean acidification caused by climate 

change may also affect OC coho salmon 

by altering marine food webs. Increasing 

atmospheric carbon dioxide is absorbed 

by the surface layers of the ocean, 

leading to increased acidity and 

decreased concentration of carbonate in 

the ocean (Bindoff et al., 2007; Fabry et 

al., 2008). Reductions in carbonate have 

consequences for marine invertebrates, 

which use carbonate to produce calcite 

and aragonite shells; this could lead to 

substantial changes in marine foodwebs 

(Feely et al., 2004; Fabry et al., 2008). 

As with freshwater and open ocean 

habitats, changes in estuary ecosystems 

as a result of climate change may also 

affect OC coho salmon. Rising sea 

levels, changes in freshwater inputs, 

and increases in water temperature 

could lead to shifts in species 

distributions, changes in community 

species composition, and changes in 

biological production (Stout et al., 

2010). Warming in estuaries can also be 

expected to have similar effects on coho 

salmon as in other habitats: increased 

physiological stress and increased 

susceptibility to disease, parasites, and 

predation (Marine and Cech, 2004; 

Marcogliese, 2008). 

Despite the uncertainties involved in 

predicting the effects of global climate 

change on the OC coho salmon ESU, the 

available information indicates that 

most impacts are likely to be negative. 

While individual effects at a particular 

life-history stage may be small, the 

cumulative effect of many small effects 

multiplied across life-history stages and 

across generations can result in large 

changes in salmon population dynamics 

(Stout et al., 2010). In its conclusion on 

the likely effects of climate change, the 

BRT expressed both positive and 

negative possible effects but stressed 

that when effects are considered 

collectively, their impact on ESU 

viability is likely to be negative despite 

the large uncertainties associated with 

individual effects. 

Efforts Being Made to Protect the 

Species 

Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires 

the Secretary to take into account efforts 

being made to protect a species when 

evaluating a species’ listing 

classification (50 CFR 424.11(f)). 

Because the BRT’s extinction risk 

findings were influenced significantly 

by predictions about future freshwater 

and estuarine habitat conditions, we 

performed a comprehensive analysis of 

programs that provide protection to OC 

coho salmon habitat. 

Forestry 

State Forest Practices Act 

Management of riparian areas on 

private forest lands within the range of 

OC coho salmon is regulated by the 

Oregon Forest Practices Act and Rules 

(Oregon Department of Forestry, 2005b). 

These rules require the establishment of 

riparian management areas (RMA) on 

certain streams that are within or 

adjacent to forestry operations. The 

RMA widths vary from 10 feet (3.05 

meters) to 100 feet (30.48 meters) 

depending on the stream classification, 

with fish-bearing streams having wider 

RMA than streams that are not fishbearing. 

Logging generally is allowed within 

the RMA under the Forest Practice 

rules. The rules specify the types and 

amount of vegetation that must be 

retained for various types of streams, 

and land owners may choose general or 

site-specific vegetation retention 

prescriptions as detailed in Oregon 

Department of Forestry (2005b). 

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 ability to fully protect water 

quality and salmon habitat (Everest and 

Reeves, 2007; ODF, 2005b; IMST, 1999). 

In particular, disagreements continue 

over: (1) Whether the widths of RMAs 

are sufficient to fully protect riparian 

functions and stream habitats; (2) 

whether operations allowed within 

RMAs will degrade stream habitats; (3) 

operations on high-risk landslide sites; 

and (4) watershed-scale effects. Based 

on the available information, we are 

unable to conclude that the Oregon 

Forest Practices Act adequately protects 

OC coho habitat in all circumstances. 

On some streams, forestry operations 

conducted in compliance with this act 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
29500 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

are likely to reduce stream shade, slow 

the recruitment of large woody debris, 

and add fine sediments. Since there are 

no limitations on cumulative watershed 

effects, road density on private forest 

lands, which is high throughout the 

range of this ESU, is unlikely to 

decrease. 

State Forest Programs 

Approximately 567,000 acres (2295 

square kilometers) of forest land within 

the range of OC coho salmon are 

managed by the Oregon Board of 

Forestry (Oregon Department of 

Forestry, 2005). These lands are divided 

between Common School Fund lands 

and Board of Forestry Lands. Most of 

the Common School Fund lands are 

located in the Elliot State Forest, and 

most of the Board of Forestry Lands are 

located in the Clatsop and Tillamook 

State Forests. There are also small 

scattered tracts of both Common School 

Fund lands and Board of Forestry Lands 

throughout the range of OC coho 

salmon. The majority of these lands are 

managed under the Northwest Oregon 

Forest Management Plan and the Elliot 

Forest Management Plan. 

These plans are described in detail in 

Oregon Department of Forestry 

(2001and 2006). Each plan defines a set 

of desired riparian conditions, 

landscape management strategies, 

aquatic and riparian strategies, 

guidelines for implementing these 

strategies, and an adaptive management 

framework. The plans contain a stream 

classification system for determining 

applicable management standards for 

each stream size/type. More specific 

protective measures for salmon and 

riparian areas on the Elliot State Forest 

can be found in the Elliot State Forest 

Draft Habitat Conservation Plan (Oregon 

Department of Forestry, 2008). The 

Oregon Department of Forestry began 

pursuing an ESA section 10 habitat 

conservation plan for the Northwest 

Oregon State Forests, but has not 

completed the plan. 

Specific standards for forest 

management within riparian zones are 

described in the Elliot State Forest Draft 

Habitat Conservation Plan (Oregon 

Department of Forestry, 2008). For fishbearing streams, three management 

zones exist, the stream bank zone (0--25 

feet), inner riparian management zone 

(25--100 feet) and the outer riparian 

management zone (100--160 feet). 

Standards for the stream bank 

management zone are the most 

restrictive with no harvest of trees 

allowed, no use of ground based 

equipment, and full suspension of logs 

that are yarded through this zone. The 

management of forestry activities 

becomes more permissive as the 

distance from the stream increases. 

We have yet to reach an agreement 

with Oregon Department of Forestry on 

completing a Habitat Conservation Plan 

for the Elliot Forest Habitat 

Conservation Plan. On July 19, 2009, we 

notified Oregon Department of Forestry 

that ‘‘we are unable to conclude the 

strategies would meet the conservation 

needs of our trust resources and provide 

for the survival and recovery of Oregon 

Coast (OC) coho salmon.’’ (Letter from 

Kim Kratz, NMFS to Jim Young, Oregon 

Department of Forestry, dated July 19, 

2009). We identified concerns over 

stream shade, woody debris 

recruitment, and certain other issues 

that needed be resolved before the 

Habitat Conservation Plan can be 

approved. On July 27, 2009, the Oregon 

Department of Forestry responded, 

stating that the proposed protective 

measures ‘‘will provide a high level of 

protection for Oregon’s fish and wildlife 

species and a low level of risk’’ (Letter 

from Jim Young, Oregon Department of 

Forestry, to Kim Kratz, NMFS, dated 

July 27, 2009). There is still significant 

disagreement over whether the 

proposed protective measures are 

sufficient to conserve OC coho salmon 

and their habitat. We remain in 

negotiations with Oregon Department of 

Forestry over the plan, but it is 

uncertain how the outstanding 

disagreements will be resolved. For 

purposes of this assessment, we are 

unable to conclude that the state forest 

management plans will provide for OC 

coho salmon habitat that is capable of 

supporting populations that are viable 

during both good and poor marine 

conditions. It is likely that some OC 

coho salmon habitat on state forests will 

be maintained in its current degraded 

state, some habitat will be further 

degraded, and habitat in areas that are 

not being harvested will recover. 

Northwest Forest Plan 

Since 1994, land management on 

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). In the short term, this 

strategy was designed to halt watershed 

degradation and in the long-term, to 

provide for a system of healthy, 

functioning watersheds with goodquality aquatic habitat (FEMAT, 1993). 

A detailed explanation of the aquatic 

conservation strategy and its expected 

benefits to OC coho salmon and their 

habitat can be found in FEMAT (1993), 

USDA and USDI (1994), and Oregon 

State BLM and U.S. Forest Service, 

Region 6 (2005). 

When compared to other aquatic 

conservation strategies and forest 

practice rules, the Northwest Forest 

Plan has large riparian management 

zones (1 to 2 site potential tree heights) 

and relatively protective activityspecific management standards (USDA 

and USDI, 1994). For instance, on fishbearing streams, the riparian 

management zone extends 

approximately 300 feet (91.44 meters) 

on each side of the stream. Although 

some timber harvest or pre-commercial 

thinning could occur in riparian 

management zones, a comprehensive 

analysis process known as watershed 

assessment is required first (USDA and 

USDI, 1994). Most riparian functions 

such as maintenance of water 

temperature, control of sediment, and 

maintenance of stream banks, will be 

addressed under this plan (FEMAT, 

1993; Everest and Reeves, 2007), 

although Federal land management 

agencies have considerable discretion to 

develop individual forest management 

actions with varying levels of impacts 

under the plan. Additional protection 

for ESA-listed species comes from the 

ESA requirement for federal landmanagement agencies to ensure that 

their actions are not likely to jeopardize 

listed species or destroy or adversely 

modify their critical habitats and to 

evaluate their actions under the 

National Environmental Policy Act. 

Unlike many state forest practice rules, 

the Northwest Forest Plan addresses 

riparian management at the watershed 

scale with specific emphasis on 

maintaining ecosystem functions over 

the long term (Everest and Reeves, 

2007). The plan also goes beyond 

establishing the absolute minimum set 

of practices that would meet stated 

riparian management goals and the 

concept that goals could be met by 

implementing yet another set of best 

management practices (Everest and 

Reeves, 2007). 

Large improvements in watershed 

condition were not expected 

immediately after this plan’s 

implementation because many 

watersheds were extensively degraded 

and natural systems recover at a slow 

rate (FEMAT, 1993). Researchers began 

evaluating how watershed condition 

had changed after 10 years of plan 

implementation. Gallo et al. (2005) 

evaluated 250 watersheds within the 

area covered by the Northwest Forest 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 29501 

Plan during two time periods (1990-- 

1996 and 1998--2003) and found slight 

improvements in watershed condition 

between the two periods. Fifty-seven 

percent of the watersheds had higher 

condition scores in the second time 

period than in the first time period. 

They also found that growth rate of trees 

exceeded losses to harvest and wildfire, 

and nine times as many roads were 

decommissioned as were constructed. 

Reeves et al. (2006) found that 

watershed condition scores (a method of 

evaluating the physical characteristics 

of a watershed likely to facilitate the 

development of good habitat for native 

or desirable fish species) improved in 

161 of 250 watersheds evaluated, 

remained the same in 18, and decreased 

in 71 watersheds. The authors note 

wildfires burned large portions of many 

of the watersheds where condition 

scores had decreased. 

These authors conclude that, in 

general, the condition of watersheds 

covered by the Northwest Forest Plan 

has improved, and primary reasons for 

the improvement include the increase in 

number of large trees in riparian areas, 

a decrease in the extent of clear-cutting 

in riparian zones, and a reduction in the 

amount of road-building. Additionally, 

litigation also curtailed forest 

management activities in many salmonbearing watersheds during a substantial 

part of the evaluation period. However, 

the authors also caution that it is 

currently unknown if the observed 

improvements in watershed condition 

will translate into longer-term 

improvements in aquatic ecosystems 

across the broad landscape covered by 

the plan. The BRT’s analysis of stream 

habitat complexity trends indicates that 

the observed improvements in 

watershed condition have yet to be fully 

realized in actual stream habitat 

conditions (Stout et al., 2010). After 

considering the available information, 

the BRT also concluded that stream 

habitat conditions on Federal land 

would ultimately improve in the future 

under the Northwest Forest Plan, even 

though its analysis indicated an 

apparent decrease in habitat quality 

over the last decade (Stout et al., 2010). 

When fully implemented, we also 

consider the Northwest Forest Plan 

sufficient to provide for OC coho 

salmon habitat needs on Federal lands 

that can contribute to viable populations 

of OC coho salmon in the future. 

However, uncertainty exists about the 

future of aquatic conservation strategies 

on Federal lands in the Pacific 

Northwest. The Forest Service has 

attempted to revise the aquatic 

conservation strategy for management of 

its land several times over the last few 

years but has encountered legal 

challenges each time. In 2007, the BLM 

proposed to adopt a new aquatic 

conservation strategy as part of the 

Western Oregon Resources Plan (USDI 

BLM, 2007). On January 11, 2008, 

NMFS notified the BLM of several 

concerns about the proposed revisions. 

NMFS indicated that the plan ‘‘does not 

contain a coherent and cohesive 

conservation strategy for anadromous 

fish and their habitat in any of the 

action alternatives’’ and ‘‘the riparian 

management scenario proposed in the 

preferred alternative would not 

adequately maintain and restore the 

riparian and aquatic habitat conditions 

and processes that are critical to the 

conservation of anadromous fish’’ (letter 

from D. Robert Lohn to Edward 

Shepard, July 11, 2008). The BLM made 

some changes in response to these 

comments and later decided to 

withdraw the proposed plan entirely. 

Although the Northwest Forest Plan 

aquatic conservation strategy is the 

current standard for protection of fish 

habitat on Federal lands in Oregon, 

there is some possibility that a less 

protective plan will be adopted in the 

future. NMFS is not aware of any effort 

to strengthen the Northwest Forest 

Plan’s aquatic conservation strategy 

since its adoption in 1994. 

Agriculture 

Agricultural Water Quality Program 

For agricultural lands, riparian 

management is governed by agricultural 

water quality management plans under 

Oregon Senate Bill 1010 and later area 

rules. Under these rules, water quality 

management plans must be developed 

for streams that are listed as water 

quality limited under the Federal Clean 

Water Act. Water quality management 

plans may also be developed in 

response to other Federal or state laws 

such as the Coastal Zone Management 

Act, Groundwater Management Act, or 

Safe Drinking Water Act. Within the 

range of OC coho salmon, water quality 

management plans have been developed 

for the Yamhill, North Coast, Mid-Coast, 

Curry County, and Inland Rogue River 

basins (Oregon Department of 

Agriculture, 2005). Once plans are 

completed, Oregon Administrative 

Rules (OAR 603–095) are promulgated 

to provide an enforceable backstop for 

addressing water pollution from 

agricultural activities and rural lands. 

Specific rules for riparian 

management vary by basin and are 

summarized in Oregon Department of 

Agriculture (2005). The rules are general 

and open to interpretation. For instance, 

language similar to the following from 

the mid-coast plan is found in the other 

plans ‘‘[Riparian] vegetation must be 

sufficient to provide the following 

riparian functions: shade, streambank 

integrity during stream flows following 

a 25–year storm event, and filtration of 

nutrients and sediment.’’ Although this 

type of language identifies the important 

functions riparian vegetation may 

provide, there are no measurable 

standards or specific requirements in 

any of the riparian rules. This leaves 

uncertainty for landowners and makes 

enforcement of these rules difficult. 

This is reflected in the number of 

enforcement actions taken from 1998-- 

2004. The Oregon Department of 

Agriculture reported that nine 

complaints were made within the range 

of OC coho salmon during this time 

period. This resulted in three water 

quality advisory sessions with the 

Department of Agriculture, one letter of 

warning, and no letters of noncompliance or civil penalties (Oregon 

Department of Agriculture, 2005). 

In the past, the Oregon Department of 

Agriculture enforced the rules only 

when members of the public made 

complaints. Since the program does not 

specify what type of vegetation riparian 

areas should contain, it is hard for the 

public to know if and when the rules are 

being violated. Consequently, 

complaints were rare. Recent 

administrative changes now allow staff 

from the Department of Agriculture to 

investigate possible violations without 

complaints from the public. At this 

point, it is uncertain how many 

investigations will be initiated by the 

Department of Agriculture. In the past, 

the Department has relied on a 

cooperative approach with landowners, 

and repeated violations were necessary 

for enforcement action to take place. 

With the adoption of the Oregon Plan 

for Salmon and Watersheds and 

outreach by the Department of 

Agriculture, awareness about salmon 

habitat on agricultural lands has 

increased. Still, uncertainties exist 

about how the rules will affect the 

quality and trend of stream habitat 

conditions on agricultural lands 

throughout the range of OC coho 

salmon. 

The riparian rules also exempt levees, 

dikes, and livestock crossing areas. In 

some agricultural lands, this may result 

in only a small portion of a riparian area 

being excluded from the rules. In other 

areas, extensive levees or dikes may 

constrain a stream’s floodplain and 

prevent the development of a healthy 

riparian plant community and the 

resulting improvements in instream 

habitat complexity. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
29502 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Confined Animal Feeding Operation 

Program 

The Oregon Department of 

Agriculture issues permits for confined 

animal feeding operations commonly 

known as feedlots. This permitting 

program began in the early 1980s to 

prevent animal wastes from 

contaminating groundwater and surface 

water. The Federal Clean Water Act also 

requires permitting of confined feedlots 

in some situations. For many years, the 

State of Oregon chose not to issue Clean 

Water Act permits (under the National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) 

for confined animal feeding operation 

wastes because it deemed the stateissued permits to be more restrictive. 

The state permit program prohibits the 

discharge of animal wastes to surface 

waters, while Clean Water Act permits 

allow such discharges to surface water 

during large storm events. In 2001, the 

Oregon State Legislature ordered the 

Department of Agriculture to begin 

issuing permits under the Federal Clean 

Water Act. 

The Department of Agriculture carries 

out an inspection program for confined 

animal feed operations. From 1998 to 

2004, the Department carried out 1,013 

inspections and investigated 82 

complaints, resulting in the issuance of 

92 notices of noncompliance, 175 

notices of noncompliance with a plan of 

correction, and 8 civil penalties (ODA, 

2005). It appears as if the Department of 

Agriculture maintains a fairly robust 

enforcement program for feedlot 

operations. 

State Pesticide Programs 

The Oregon Department of 

Agriculture’s Pesticides Division 

regulates agricultural, residential, and 

commercial application of pesticides 

throughout the state. The U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency has 

designated the Oregon Department of 

Agriculture to enforce the Federal 

Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide 

Act, as it pertains to pesticides. Oregon 

also has a Pesticide Control Act (passed 

in 1973), which, in part, allows the 

Department of Agriculture to further 

regulate pesticide use across the entire 

state or within a specific area (ODA, 

2005). The Department of Agriculture 

regulates pesticide application by 

licensing certain applicators, requiring 

pesticides to be registered, and carrying 

out pesticide compliance monitoring. 

Oregon House Bill 3602 required the 

Department of Agriculture to develop a 

Pesticide Use Reporting Program. 

Funding and staffing problems have 

delayed implementation of this 

program. The Department reports that 

this pesticide use reporting will not 

resume until 2013 (http:// 

www.oregon.gov/ODA/PEST/ 

purslindex.shtml#PURSlnews). Other 

Federal and Oregon state laws may 

require some pesticide use reporting, 

but this information is not readily 

available to NMFS, and there is no 

current method to estimate the amount 

of pesticides being applied throughout 

the range of the OC coho salmon. 

The Department of Agriculture 

pesticide program most likely helps 

reduce the amount of pesticides 

reaching surface water throughout the 

range of the OC coho salmon. The 

licensing program and compliance 

monitoring help to reduce the amount of 

pesticides that are applied in a manner 

that would adversely affect water 

quality. Unfortunately, we know that 

many pesticides still end up in surface 

waters of Oregon (Carpenter et al., 2008; 

NMFS, 2008). The state programs do not 

include any specific buffers for the 

application of pesticides. It is likely that 

the Federal pesticide registration and 

labeling program (as described below) 

may be more important in reducing the 

amount of pesticides reaching surface 

waters. 

Federal Pesticide Labeling Program 

Starting in 2001, a series of legal 

actions forced the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency to initiate ESA 

section 7 consultations with NMFS on 

its registration of pesticides under the 

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 

Rodenticide Act. As part of a negotiated 

settlement, the Environmental 

Protection Agency and NMFS agreed to 

complete consultation on 37 pesticides 

that may adversely affect listed 

salmonids and their critical habitat. 

This first consultation, completed in 

November 2008, evaluated three 

organophosphate pesticides: 

chlorpyrifos, diazinon, and malathion. 

In the biological opinion for this 

consultation, we concluded that the 

Environmental Protection Agency’s 

proposed registration of the uses (as 

described by product labels) of all 

pesticides containing chlorpyrifos, 

diazinon, or malathion jeopardizes the 

continued existence of OC coho salmon 

and adversely modifies their designated 

critical habitat (NMFS, 2008). 

Chlorpyrifos, diazinon, or malathion 

are toxic to salmonids and their prey at 

relatively low exposure rates (NMFS, 

2008). These chemicals can cause 

several lethal and sublethal effects, 

including reduced growth (Allison and 

Hermanutz, 1977), interference with 

olfactory function (Scholz et al., 2000), 

and death from acute exposure (NMFS, 

2008). In our biological opinion on their 

registration, we stated ‘‘Given the life 

history of OC coho salmon, we expect 

the proposed uses of chlorpyrifos, 

diazinon, and malathion pesticide 

products that contaminate aquatic 

habitats may lead to both individual 

fitness level consequences and 

subsequent population level 

consequences, i.e., reductions in 

population viability. The widespread 

uses of these materials indicate 

substantial overlap with the populations 

that comprise the OC coho salmon. The 

risk to this species’ survival and 

recovery from the stressors of the action 

is high.’’ (NMFS, 2008) We also stated 

‘‘Chlorpyrifos, diazinon, and malathion 

are among the most common 

insecticides found in mixtures. Based 

on evidence of additive and synergistic 

effects of these compounds, we expect 

mortality of large numbers and types of 

aquatic insects, which are prey items for 

salmon,’’ and concluded that the 

proposed action would adversely 

modify critical habitat for OC coho 

salmon. This biological opinion 

provides a reasonable and prudent 

alternative to the proposed action. This 

alternative includes adding labeling 

provisions that prohibit ground 

application of these chemicals within 

500 feet (152.4 meters) of salmonid 

habitat, aerial application within 1,000 

feet (304.8 meters) of salmonid habitat, 

and when wind speed is greater or equal 

to 10 miles per hour (16.1 kilometers 

per hour). This reasonable and prudent 

alternative has yet to be fully accepted 

by the Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

Diazinon and chlorpyrifos are being 

phased out for some non-crop uses but 

will remain available for some 

commercial uses and agricultural use, 

so, the use of these chemicals may 

decrease slightly in the near future. 

Malathion is not being phased out in the 

foreseeable future. We will continue 

consultation on registration of the 

remaining pesticides, but since these 

three organo-phosphate pesticides are 

among the most toxic to salmon and 

their prey, it is reasonable to assume 

that the results of the future 

consultations will be equally or less 

restrictive. 

Irrigation and Water Availability 

The Oregon Water Resources 

Department has initiated a water right 

leasing program to mitigate loss of 

instream flow due to irrigation 

withdrawals. Water leases provide a 

mechanism for temporarily changing the 

type and place of use for a certificated 

water right to an instream use. In 

streams where low summer stream flow 

is a limiting factor for OC coho salmon, 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 29503 

boosting instream flow would improve 

this habitat. In some cases, leased water 

can remain instream for a significant 

distance. In other cases, leased water 

only remains instream until it reaches 

the next water user because that water 

user’s water right would be sufficiently 

large enough to allow them to divert all 

or a portion of the leased water. 

Consequently, the protection of 

instream water rights does not provide 

certain instream flow for fish and 

wildlife because virtually all of these 

existing rights for instream flow have 

priority dates after 1955 and are fairly 

junior to other water rights in most 

basins and therefore do not often affect 

water deliveries (INR, 2005). Due to 

these uncertainties, we must conclude 

that this program provides some local 

beneficial effects by boosting stream 

flow, but it is not likely to have 

population level positive effects in areas 

where low flow limits OC coho salmon 

production (i.e., Umpqua River Basin). 

Agriculture Summary 

Across all populations, agricultural 

lands occupy approximately 0–20 

percent of lands adjacent to OC coho 

salmon habitat (Burnett et al., 2007). 

Much of this habitat is considered to 

have high intrinsic potential (low 

gradient stream reaches with 

historically high habitat complexity) but 

has been degraded by past management 

activities (Burnett et al., 2007). The state 

and Federal programs reviewed in this 

section are partially effective at 

protecting this habitat. Other programs 

including the Federal Clean Water Act 

section 404 and Division of State Lands 

permitting programs regulate additional 

activities, such as discharge of fill 

material in wetlands and water bodies 

that may occur on agricultural lands 

(these programs are reviewed in other 

sections of this Proposed Rule). When 

considered together, these programs 

provide a minimal level of protection 

for OC coho habitat on agricultural 

lands. Many of the agricultural actions 

that have the greatest potential to 

degrade coho habitat, such as 

management of animal waste, 

application of toxic pesticides, and 

discharge of fill material, have some 

protective measures in place that limit 

their adverse effects on aquatic habitat. 

However, deficiencies in these programs 

limit their effectiveness at protecting OC 

coho salmon habitat. In particular, the 

riparian rules of the water quality 

management program are vague and 

enforcement of this program is sporadic. 

The lack of clear criteria for riparian 

condition will continue to make the 

requirements of this program difficult to 

enforce. Levees and dikes can be 

maintained and left devoid of riparian 

vegetation regardless of their proximity 

to a stream. The lack of streamside 

buffers in the state’s pesticide program 

likely results in water quality impacts 

from the application of pesticides. 

Although new requirements from ESA 

section 7 consultations on pesticide 

registration may afford more protection 

to OC coho salmon, these requirements 

will only apply if the OC coho salmon 

remains listed. Although a water leasing 

program is available, there is much 

uncertainty about how much these 

programs will actually boost instream 

flow. The available information leads us 

to conclude that it is likely that the 

quality of OC coho salmon habitat on 

private agricultural lands may improve 

slowly over time or remain in a 

degraded state. It is unlikely that, under 

the current programs, OC coho salmon 

habitat will recover to the point that it 

can produce viable populations during 

both good and poor marine conditions. 

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), 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 (ODFW, 2007). 

Forty percent of the stream miles 

inhabited by OC salmon ESU are 

classified as temperature impaired 

(Stout et al., 2010). Although programs 

carried out under the Clean Water Act 

are well funded and enforcement of this 

law occurs, it is unlikely that programs 

are sufficient to protect salmon habitat 

in a condition that would provide for 

viable populations during good and 

poor marine conditions. 

Gravel Mining 

Gravel mining occurs in various areas 

throughout the freshwater range of OC 

coho salmon but is most common in the 

South Fork Umpqua, South Fork 

Coquille, Nehalem, Nestucca, Trask, 

Kilchis, Miami, and Wilson Rivers. The 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

frequently issues permits under Section 

404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 

10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act for 

gravel mining in rivers in the southern 

extent of the OC coho salmon’s range. 

Although gravel mining activities occur 

within rivers at the northern extent of 

this ESU’s range, such as the Nehalem 

River, the Corps of Engineers does not 

always issue permits for these activities. 

Although the gravel mining occurring in 

the northern and southern portions of 

this ESU’s range uses similar methods to 

collect the material, it is unclear why 

fewer permits are issued in the northern 

portion of this ESU’s range. The Oregon 

Department of State Lands issues 

similar permits under both the RemovalFill Law and the State Scenic Waterway 

Law. 

Improperly managed gravel mining 

may adversely affect OC coho salmon 

habitat, particularly in systems where 

substrate recruitment patterns have been 

altered. River channel deepening 

through substrate removal may reduce 

the available important low velocity, 

shallow water rearing habitats. This 

type of habitat can be particularly 

important for juvenile coho salmon in 

lower river and estuary areas (Bottom 

and Jones, 1990; Dawley et al., 1986). 

McMahon and Holtby (1992) found 

coho smolts sought cover as they 

migrated through the estuary. Gravel 

mining can result in a deeper and less 

complex streambed which would not 

provide these refuge areas. 

Gravel mining can also alter salmonid 

food webs by eliminating shallow water 

habitat, where food webs are based on 

substrate or emergent marsh vegetation 

and infauna (Bottom and Jones, 1990; 

Dawley et al., 1986). These food webs 

are more likely to directly support 

salmonid productivity than ones in 

large open channels (Bottom et al., 

1984; Salo, 1991). For substrate-oriented 

macroinvertebrates, the highest 

abundance is produced by well-graded 

mixtures of gravel and cobble, with 

poorly-graded mixtures of sands and 

silts or boulders and bedrock producing 

the lowest abundance (Reiser, 1998). In 

particular, the significant taxonomic 

groups for salmonid food sources, 

including insects in the orders 

Ephemeroptera (mayflies), Plecoptera 

(stoneflies), and Trichopetera 

(caddisflies), show preferences for small 

to large-sized gravels rather than coarse 

or fine sands. Direct removal of aquatic 

vegetation or elimination of shallow 

water habitats will also reduce the 

abundance of vegetation-oriented 

macroinvertebrates easten by juvenile 

salmon such as ants (Formicidae) and 

grasshoppers (Caelifera). 

Removal of riverbed substrates may 

also alter the relationship between 

sediment load and shear stress forces 

and increases bank and channel erosion. 

This disrupts channel form, and can 

also disrupt the processes of channel 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
29504 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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. Dredging and excavation 

activities have the potential to 

resuspend embedded contaminants or 

unearth buried contaminants adhered to 

sediment and soil particles. 

Management and removal of stream 

substrates has been a concern in some 

rivers that provide habitat for OC coho 

salmon. On August 6, 2004, NMFS 

issued a jeopardy conference opinion 

under section 7 of the ESA on the 

issuance of a permit under section 10 of 

the Rivers and Harbors Act and section 

404 of the Clean Water Act for gravel 

mining in the Umpqua River between 

rivermile 18 and 25 (NMFS, 2004). This 

action subsequently ceased, but gravel 

mining in the South Fork Umpqua River 

remains a concern. In 2005, we issued 

a draft conference opinion that 

concluded that proposed gravel mining 

in the South Fork Umpqua River was 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of OC coho salmon and would 

result in the destruction or adverse 

modification of their critical habitat 

(letter from Michael Crouse, NMFS to 

Larry Evans, Corps of Engineers dated 

May 29, 2007). NMFS also 

recommended, under the Fish and 

Wildlife Coordination Act and 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act, that 

the permit for this proposed action be 

denied. Similarly, we recommended 

under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act, that 

the volume of gravel being removed 

from the Lower Umpqua River be 

limited and the method of removal 

restricted to a manner that will protect 

the geomorphology of the river (NMFS, 

2006). 

Although the Corps of Engineers and 

Department of State Lands carry out 

programs to regulate gravel mining, 

recent ESA and MSA consultations 

indicate that, in some cases, additional 

measures are needed to provide for OC 

coho salmon habitat capable of 

producing viable populations during 

good and poor marine conditions. 

Habitat Restoration Programs 

The Oregon Watershed Enhancement 

Board funds and facilitates habitat 

restoration projects throughout the 

range of the OC coho salmon. Many of 

these projects occur on private land and 

are planned with local stakeholder 

groups known as watershed councils. 

Biologists and restoration specialists 

from state, Federal and tribal agencies 

often assist in the planning and 

implementation of projects. Habitat 

restoration projects funded by the 

Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board 

include installation of fish screens, 

riparian planting, placement of large 

woody debris, road treatments to reduce 

sediment inputs to streams, wetland 

restoration, and removal of fish passage 

barriers (Oregon Watershed 

Enhancement Board, 2009). The webbased Oregon Watershed Restoration 

Inventory (http://www.oregon.gov/

OWEB/MONITOR/OWRIldata.shtml) 

and the North Coast Explorer (http://

www.northcoastexplorer.info/) systems 

provide detailed information on 

restoration projects implemented within 

the range of OC coho salmon. We also 

maintain the Pacific Northwest Salmon 

Habitat Project Database (http:// 

webapps.nwfsc.noaa.gov/pnshp) to 

track salmon habitat restoration 

projects. Douglas County provided 

information on several habitat 

restoration projects completed within 

the Umpqua River Basin. In addition to 

state and private efforts, the Forest 

Service and Bureau of Land 

Management carry out restoration 

projects on Federal lands (USDA and 

USDI, 2005). 

The BRT conducted an analysis to 

determine if recent habitat restoration 

projects are being located to address 

habitat need. The results indicate that 

restoration projects in broad areas of the 

ESU are well matched to the needs of 

the specific basins, but in a few areas on 

the North Coast and most of the 

Umpqua River basin, the projects’ match 

is marginal or worse, indicating a need 

for coordination between those doing 

habitat assessments and those designing 

and implementing restoration projects 

(Stout et al., 2010). 

Beaver Management 

Beavers were once widespread across 

Oregon. There is general agreement that 

beavers are a natural component of the 

aquatic ecosystem and beaver dams 

provide ideal habitat for overwintering 

coho salmon juveniles (ODFW, 1997). 

Currently, beavers in Oregon are 

classified as nuisance species, so there 

is no closed season or bag limit. They 

may be killed at any time they are 

encountered. Oregon also maintains a 

trapping season for beavers. The ODFW 

is currently investigating possible ways 

to protect beavers and their dams 

throughout the range of OC coho 

salmon. All of the current protective 

efforts are voluntary, and there is low 

certainty they will be fully 

implemented. 

Proposed Determination 

Section 4(b)(1) of the ESA requires 

that a listing determination be based 

solely on the best scientific and 

commercial data available, 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 to protect and 

conserve the species. We have reviewed 

the information received during the 

public comment period we announced 

at the beginning of this review process, 

the report of the BRT (Stout et al., 2010) 

and other information available on the 

biology and status of the OC coho 

salmon ESU. Based on this review, we 

conclude that there is no new 

information to indicate that the 

boundaries of this ESU should be 

revised or that the ESU membership of 

existing hatchery populations should be 

changed. 

Ongoing efforts to protect OC coho 

salmon and their habitat, as described in 

the previous section, are likely to 

provide some benefit to this ESU. 

Considered collectively, however, these 

efforts do not comprehensively address 

the threats to the OC coho salmon ESU 

from ongoing and future land 

management activities and global 

climate change. 

Based on the best scientific and 

commercial information available, 

including the BRT report, we determine 

that the OC coho salmon ESU is not 

presently in danger of extinction, but is 

likely to become so in the foreseeable 

future throughout all of its range. 

Factors supporting a conclusion that 

this ESU is not presently in danger of 

extinction include: (1) although 

abundance has declined from historical 

levels, this ESU remains well 

distributed throughout its historical 

range from just south of the Columbia 

River to north of Cape Blanco, Oregon; 

(2) each one of the five strata comprising 

this ESU contains at least one relatively 

healthy population; (3) threats posed by 

overharvest and hatchery practices have 

largely been addressed; and (4) 

spawning escapement levels have 

improved considerably in recent years. 

Factors supporting a conclusion that 

the DPS is likely to become in danger of 

extinction in the foreseeable future 

include: (1) although the results of the 

BRT’s decision support system analysis 

indicate a low to moderate certainty that 

the ESU is sustainable, the results 

indicate a low certainty that the ESU 

will persist over the next 100 years; (2) 

habitat complexity in streams 

throughout the range of this ESU is 

either static or declining (Stout et al., 

2010); (3) current protective efforts are 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 29505 

insufficient to provide for freshwater 

habitat conditions capable of producing 

a viable ESU; and (4) global climate 

change is likely to result in further 

degradation of freshwater habitat 

conditions and poor marine survival. 

Therefore, we propose to retain the 

threatened listing for the OC coho 

salmon ESU by repromulgating the rule 

classifying the ESU as threatened. This 

proposed rule would supersede our 

2008 rule listing the species as 

threatened. 

Prohibitions and Protective Measures 

Section 9 of the ESA prohibits the 

take of endangered species. The term 

‘‘take‘‘ means to harass, harm, pursue, 

hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, 

or collect, or to attempt to engage in any 

such conduct (16 U.S.C. 1532(19). In the 

case of threatened species, ESA section 

4(d) leaves it to the Secretary’s 

discretion whether, and to what extent, 

to extend the section 9(a) ‘‘take‘‘ 

prohibitions to the species, and 

authorizes us to issue regulations it 

considers necessary and advisable for 

the conservation of the species. On 

February 11, 2008, we issued final 

protective regulations under section 4(d) 

of the ESA for the OC coho salmon ESU 

(73 FR 7816). The new information that 

we evaluated in this current review of 

the status of the OC coho ESU does not 

alter our determinations regarding those 

portions of our February 11, 2008 rule 

establishing ESA section 4(d) 

protections for the species. Accordingly, 

we do not proposed changing those 

protective regulations and they remain 

in effect. 

Other Protective ESA Provisions 

Section 7(a)(4) of the ESA requires 

that Federal agencies confer with NMFS 

on any actions likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of a species 

proposed for listing and on actions 

likely to result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of proposed 

critical habitat. For listed species, 

section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies 

to ensure that activities they authorize, 

fund, or conduct are not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of a 

listed species or to destroy or adversely 

modify its critical habitat. If a proposed 

Federal action may affect a listed 

species or its critical habitat, the 

responsible Federal agency must enter 

into consultation with NMFS or the 

FWS, as appropriate. Examples of 

Federal actions likely to affect salmon 

include authorized land management 

activities of the Forest Service and the 

BLM, as well as operation of 

hydroelectric and storage projects of the 

Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers. Such 

activities include timber sales and 

harvest, permitting livestock grazing, 

hydroelectric power generation, and 

flood control. Federal actions, including 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

section 404 permitting activities under 

the Clean Water Act, permitting 

activities under the River and Harbors 

Act, Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission licenses for non-Federal 

development and operation of 

hydropower, and Federal salmon 

hatcheries, may also require 

consultation. We have a long history of 

consultation with these agencies on the 

OC coho salmon ESU. 

Sections 10(a)(1)(A) and 10(a)(1)(B) of 

the ESA provide NMFS with authority 

to grant exceptions to the ESA’s ‘‘take‘‘ 

prohibitions. Section 10(a)(1)(A) 

scientific research and enhancement 

permits may be issued to entities 

(Federal and non-Federal) conducting 

research that involves a directed take of 

listed species. A directed take refers to 

the intentional take of listed species. We 

have issued section 10(a)(1)(A) research/ 

enhancement permits for currently 

listed ESUs for a number of activities, 

including trapping and tagging, 

electroshocking to determine population 

presence and abundance, removal of 

fish from irrigation ditches, and 

collection of adult fish for artificial 

propagation programs. Section 

10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permits may 

be issued to non-Federal entities 

performing activities that may 

incidentally take listed species. The 

types of activities potentially requiring 

a section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take 

permit include the operation and release 

of artificially propagated fish by state or 

privately operated and funded 

hatcheries, state or academic research 

that may incidentally take listed 

species, the implementation of state 

fishing regulations, logging, road 

building, grazing, and diverting water 

into private lands. These ‘‘Other 

Protective ESA Provisions’’ of the 

February 11, 2008 rule remain in effect. 

Critical Habitat 

Section 4(a)(3) of the ESA requires 

that, to the extent practicable and 

determinable, critical habitat be 

designated concurrently with the listing 

of a species. Designation of critical 

habitat must be based on the best 

scientific data available and must take 

into consideration the economic, 

national security, and other relevant 

impacts of specifying any particular area 

as critical habitat. 

On February 11, 2008, we designated 

critical habitat for the OC coho salmon 

ESU (73 FR 7816). The new information 

that we evaluated in this current review 

of the status of the OC coho ESU does 

not alter our determinations regarding 

those portions of our February 11, 2008 

rule designating critical habitat for the 

species. Accordingly, we do not propose 

changing the critical habitat designation 

which remains in effect. 

Peer Review 

In December 2004, the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) issued 

a Final Information Quality Bulletin for 

Peer Review establishing minimum peer 

review standards, a transparent process 

for public disclosure of peer review 

planning, and opportunities for public 

participation. The OMB Bulletin, 

implemented under the Information 

Quality Act (Public Law 106--554), is 

intended to enhance the quality and 

credibility of the Federal government’s 

scientific information, and applies to 

influential or highly influential 

scientific information disseminated on 

or after June 16, 2005. Pursuant to the 

OMB Bulletin, we are obtaining 

independent peer review of the draft 

BRT report; all peer reviewer comments 

will be considered prior to 

dissemination of the final report and 

publication of the final rule. 

Public Comments Solicited 

To ensure that the final action 

resulting from this proposed rule will be 

as accurate and effective as possible, 

and informed by the best available 

scientific and commercial information, 

NMFS is soliciting information, 

comments, and suggestions from the 

public, other governmental agencies, the 

scientific community, industry, and any 

other interested parties. Specifically, we 

are interested in information that we 

have not considered regarding: (1) 

assessment methods to determine this 

ESU’s viability; (2) this ESU’s 

abundance, productivity, spatial 

structure, or diversity; (3) efforts being 

made to protect this ESU or its habitat; 

(4) threats to this ESU; and (5) changes 

to the condition or quantity of this 

ESU’s habitat. 

References 

A complete list of all references cited 

herein is available upon request (see 

ADDRESSES section). 

Classification 

National Environmental Policy Act 

The 1982 amendments to the ESA, in 

section 4(b)(1)(A), restrict the 

information that may be considered 

when assessing species for listing. Based 

on this limitation of criteria for a listing 

decision and the opinion in Pacific 

Legal Foundation v. Andrus, 675 F. 2d 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
29506 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

825 (6th Cir. 1981), we have concluded 

that ESA listing actions are not subject 

to the environmental assessment 

requirements of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (See NOAA 

Administrative Order 216—6). 

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Flexibility Act and Paperwork 

Reduction Act 

As noted in the Conference Report on 

the 1982 amendments to the ESA, 

economic impacts cannot be considered 

when assessing the status of a species. 

Therefore, the economic analysis 

requirements of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act are not applicable to the 

listing process. In addition, this 

proposed rule is exempt from review 

under Executive Order 12866. This 

proposed rule does not contain a 

collection-of-information requirement 

for the purposes of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act. 

E.O. 13175, Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments 

E.O. 13175 requires that if NMFS 

issues a regulation that significantly or 

uniquely affects the communities of 

Indian tribal governments and imposes 

substantial direct compliance costs on 

those communities, NMFS must consult 

with those governments or the Federal 

Government must provide the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by the tribal 

governments. This proposed rule is 

unlikely to result in direct costs to 

Native American Tribes due to the 

following: (1) this ESU has been listed 

for 15 years, and in our experience, 

there have been few, if any, direct costs 

to Tribes, (2) section 7 of the ESA 

requires that Federal agencies consult 

with NMFS on the effects of actions 

they fund, authorize, or carry out; there 

is no requirement for Tribes to do so, 

and (3) there are no large reservations 

within the range of this ESU, so Federal 

actions that may affect Tribes occur 

infrequently. Accordingly, the 

requirements of section 5(b) of E.O. 

13175 do not apply to this final rule. 

Nonetheless, we will continue to inform 

potentially affected tribal governments, 

solicit their input, and coordinate on 

future management actions. 

Federalism 

E.O. 13132 requires agencies to take 

into account any federalism impacts of 

regulations under development. It 

includes specific consultation directives 

for situations where a regulation will 

preempt state law, or impose substantial 

direct compliance costs on state and 

local governments (unless required by 

statute). We have determined that this 

proposed rule is a policy that does not 

have federalism implications. 

Consistent with the requirements of E.O. 

13132, recognizing the intent of the 

Administration and Congress to provide 

continuing and meaningful dialogue on 

issues of mutual State and Federal 

interest, and in keeping with 

Department of Commerce policies, the 

Assistant Secretary for Legislative and 

Intergovermental Affairs will provide 

notice of this proposed rule and request 

comments from the State of Oregon. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 223 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Transportation. 

Dated: May 18, 2010. 

Eric Schwaab, 

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 50 CFR part 223 is proposed 

to be amended as follows: 

PART 223—THREATENED MARINE 

AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES 

1. The authority citation for part 223 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 1543; subpart B, 

§ 223.201–202 also issued under 16 U.S.C. 

1361 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 5503(d) for 

§ 223.206(d)(9) et seq. 

2. In § 223.102, revise paragraph (c) 

(24) to read as follows: 

§ 223.102 Enumeration of threatened 

marine and anadromous species. 

* * * * * 

Species 

Where Listed Citation (s) for Listing 

Determinations 

Citations (s) 

for Critical 

Habitat Designations Common name Scientific name 

* * * * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(24) Oregon Coast Coho Oncorhynchus 

kisutch 

U.S.A., OR, all 

naturally 

spawned 

populations of 

coho salmon in 

Oregon coastal 

streams south of 

the Columbia 

River and north 

of Cape Blanco, 

including the 

Cow Creek 

(ODFW stock 

#37) coho 

hatchery 

program 

73 FR 7816; Feb 11, 

2008; [Insert FR citation 

and date when 

published as a final rule] 

73 FR 7816; 

Feb 11, 

2008 

* * * * * * * 

1Species includes taxonomic species, subspecies, distinct population segments (DPSs) (for a policy statement, see 61 FR 4722, February 7, 

1996), and evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) (for a policy statement, see 56 FR 58612, November 20, 1991). 

[FR Doc. 2010–12635 Filed 5–25–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1