Stakeholders debate re-listing or de-listing of Oregon coast coho

By Joel Gallob Of the News-Times

Two dozen members of the Oregon Coastal Coho Stakeholders group met in Newport Feb. 24 to discuss a "Viability Assessment" of the fish produced by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. ODFW believes the coastal coho decline has stopped, the fish have "re-stabilized" at a lower population, and this new stability is a basis for taking them off the Endangered Species list. That recommendation is going to the federal agency with jurisdiction over listing of the fish - the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries, which was represented at the meeting.

The coho were listed in 1998. That was challenged, starting with lawsuits opposing listing of the Alsea River runs. The Alsea coho were taken from the endangered species list as a result of one of those suits, and prompting other court cases that removed most other runs from the list.

"They are not now under the protection of the Endangered Species Act," is how NOAA Fisheries spokesman Brian Gorman puts it. Thus the question of whether they should be listed and the question whether they should be formally de-listed are both now valid questions. NOAA is reviewing both.

According to the Viability Assessment (available at ODFW's website), the coho have "re-stabilized" in most of the Oregon coast coho's Evolutionarily Significant Unit. The ESU is a region where members of the species are genetically similar to each other and distinguishable from other groups in the species.

ODFW believes the fish have survived a bad downturn, improved in the last couple years (with a return of good ocean conditions, plus habitat restoration efforts, hatcheries improvements and an end to wild coho harvest) and are now stable, although at reduced numbers.

If stable, they are not endangered, and not appropriate for listing under the Endangered Species Act - a view that Tom Byler, one of Governor Ted Kulongoski's Natural Resource Advisors, and Ed Bowles, head of ODFW's Fish Division, have stated. Yet even without ESA protections, they say, the state may set a higher standard, and aim at not just survival but abundances that meet additional social and ecological goals.

Some stakeholder team members disputed ODFW's assessment. While the fish have shown much better numbers in recent years, they argued, the long-term trend has been down for decades, if not centuries.

"It says they are not listable," replied Bill Bakke, with the Native Fish Society. "The governor's news release fortified that. The White House says it, too. I think the decision is already in."

"There's been great momentum with the Oregon Plan, based on voluntary landowner and watershed council habitat enhancements, said Paul Engelmeyer, a conservationist and public-at-large member. "But if we de-list the fish, how do we keep that momentum up? If we de-list, will the feds keep sending us funds" to help those efforts?

The conservation plan ODFW is building (with or without a new listing), "helps you get a better case for your request if your actions are in the plan," replied Rosemary Furfey, the NOAA Fisheries representative.

"There are two main funding sources for the Oregon Plan. One is the Federal Coastal Recovery Fund; the other is the Measure 66 lottery dollars. Listed or not, there will be little effect on either. And with both, the discretion in how to apply the money is with the state," Bowles said.

ODFW biologist Bruce McIntosh provided a PowerPoint show stating, based on several criteria, that 14 of the 19 populations in the coastal coho ESU are viable, while five are not.

According to the Viability Assessment, that is enough, since the coho have "re-stabilized" in the great majority of the ESU. Others disagreed.

"Six of the 14 rivers have still not achieved stock assessment," argued Engelmeyer. "Yes, that is not going extinct, but that's because we got lucky, we had the ocean turn around. You're talking about four fish per mile" as a threshold level. "Under the model that means they won't go extinct, but five fish per mile is not viable. Why isn't six or eight fish the new benchmark? With that, everything would fail."

Bowles replied, "Four fish per mile applies to the distribution criteria. That's one of five or six criteria we used. We used five fish per mile to define low density, to assess returns relative to the number of parents. The coho story is this: increasing density has led to decreasing spawner productivity relative to that density. You could see full density someplace and it would still be low if productivity is poor."

Even though the ODFW computer model tended to "damp productivity at low density," Bowles said, the fish data showed increased offspring at low densities - something nobody had predicted.

Wayne Hoffman, coordinator of the MidCoast Watersheds Council, wasn't convinced. He noted a creek in the Alsea basin, Cascade Creek, where local-scale extirpation had occurred, even though it had not been captured by the ODFW analysis.

"The Viability Assessment said there were no extirpations at basin level," said Hoffman. "But at sub-basin level there are some. That is one, where not enough fish came back to make any young - five females and one male, who knows what happened? The point is, we did see extirpations at smaller scale ... we did see cohorts winking out at the Creek level, and then being re-colonized from someplace else. The effects are not captured in the viability report."

"There had to be portions wink out, go below our radar, in the downturn," said Bowles. But, he added, "it could be there's some present at numbers below our detectable level."

Engelmeyer told Bowles, "Your report speaks of a 'new, lower state of equilibrium," but in 1995 when it was happening, nobody said 'state of equilibrium.' Everybody was talking about how we're going down."

Bowles agreed, at that time, "most scientists said it was a slide to extinction. But this assessment is based on the data. As the numbers went down, the ocean did not get better" for some years "but they were able to stabilize at the low densities. Productivity at those densities shows you do not need high abundances at the end of a trough to be sure you go up again when you come out the other end ... Abundance is not the key issue; it's all about productivity ... The question is, is that enough cushion? And that's a judgment call."

Johnny Sundstrom, from the Oregon Association of Conservation Districts, said in the Siuslaw River, larger populations showed generally smaller fish, and smaller populations larger fish. He concluded "nutrient was the limiting issue, and it's not just nose counts but the quality of the fish going into the ocean."

Bowles was more cautious. "We have not described the mechanism that links increased productivity to decreased densities," he said.

But Hoffman resumed, "The genetic study of the coho at Hatfield (Marine Science Center) has preliminary results that are not consistent with the assumptions of this population structure, except at the Umpqua ... the study found a substantial division between basins. One of the most distinctive populations is in Devils Lake (in Lincoln City). It's very small, with an independent genetic history. So the idea that a small site is re-colonized by strays is wrong," he argued. Otherwise, the genetic distinctiveness of the Devils Lake population would long since have disappeared. So, Hoffman argued, "if a population winks out at this creek, it could have more effects on the ESU than under the assumptions of this Viability Analysis."

"We can include the possibility it is too broad brush and may not capture some genetic variability," Bowles replied. "But we do not want to change it now. We want apples and apples when working with NOAA Fisheries in what they are using for their determination."