Endangered and Threatened Species; Proposed Threatened Status for Three Contiguous ESUs of Coho Salmon Ranging From Oregon Through Central California

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 227

[Docket No. 950407093-5179-02; I.D. 012595A]

Endangered and Threatened Species; Proposed Threatened Status for

Three Contiguous ESUs of Coho Salmon Ranging From Oregon Through

Central California

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: NMFS has completed a comprehensive status review of coho

salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) populations from southern British

Columbia to southern California, and has identified six evolutionarily

significant units (ESUs) within this range. NMFS is now issuing a

proposed rule to list three of these ESUs as threatened (Oregon coast,

southern Oregon/northern California, and central California coast).

NMFS is also adding two ESUs (Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia, lower

Columbia River/southwest Washington coast) to the candidate species

list because, while there is not sufficient information available at

this time to indicate that coho salmon in either ESU warrant protection

under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), NMFS has identified specific

risk factors and concerns that need to be resolved prior to assessing

the overall health of the ESUs.

NMFS is requesting public comments and input on the biological

issues pertaining to the proposal. NMFS also is soliciting suggestions

and input on integrated local/state/federal conservation measures that

might best achieve the purposes of the ESA relative to recovering the

health of coho salmon populations and the ecosystems upon which they

depend. Should the proposed listings be made final, protective

regulations under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) would be put into

effect and a recovery program(s) would be implemented.

DATES: Comments must be received by October 23, 1995. NMFS will

announce the dates and locations of public hearings in Washington,

Oregon, and California in a separate Federal Register document.

Requests for additional public hearings must be received by September

8, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this proposed rule and requests for public

hearings should be sent to the Environmental and Technical Services

Division, NMFS, Northwest Region, 525 NE Oregon Street, Suite 500,

Portland, OR 97232-2737.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Garth Griffin, 503-230-5430, Craig

Wingert, 310-980-4021, or Marta Nammack, 301-713-1401.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Petition Background

On July 21, 1993, NMFS received a petition from Oregon Trout,

Portland Audubon Society, and Siskiyou Regional Educational Project

(Oregon Trout et al.) to list five or more ESUs (See Consideration as a

``Species'' under the ESA) of indigenous, naturally spawning coho

salmon in Oregon and to designate critical habitat under the ESA. The

five ESUs identified by the petitioners included coho salmon

populations from rivers south of Cape Blanco, the Coquille and Coos

Rivers, the Umpqua River, rivers between the Umpqua and Nehalem rivers,

and the Columbia River. On October 27, 1993, NMFS published a notice of

finding (58 FR 57770) that a listing may be warranted, soliciting

information about the status of all populations of coho salmon in

Washington, Oregon, and California. NMFS determined that such an

expanded status review was warranted due to the general decline in many

West Coast coho salmon populations.

Supplemental to the July 21, 1993, petition, on October 20, 1993,

NMFS received a petition from Pacific Rivers Council and 22 co-

petitioners (PRC et al.) to list under the ESA, either on an emergency

basis or through normal listing procedures, all coho salmon populations

in Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California, and to designate critical

habitat. On January 26, 1994, NMFS published a notice of finding (59 FR

3662) that a non-emergency listing may be warranted, soliciting

information about the status of all populations of coho salmon

``coastwide'' (hereinafter defined as populations in the southern

portion of the species' range inhabiting rivers south of Queen

Charlotte Strait, British Columbia). The notice also announced that

information submitted in response to the PRC et al. petition would be

used in NMFS' coastwide review of coho salmon populations already

underway (58 FR 57770, October 27, 1993).

Prior to the Oregon Trout et al. and PRC et al. petitions, NMFS

received two

[[Page 38012]]

separate petitions to list and designate critical habitat for (1) lower

Columbia River coho salmon (55 FR 37342, September 11, 1990), and (2)

coho salmon in Scott and Waddell Creeks, CA (58 FR 33605, June 18,

1993). For both petitions, NMFS published determinations denying

listings because evidence indicated that neither of the petitioned

entities constituted a ``species'' under the ESA (56 FR 29553, June 27,

1991, and 59 FR 21744, April 26, 1994). Information considered in these

earlier status reviews was also used in NMFS' coastwide review of coho

salmon populations.

During the coastwide status review, NMFS assessed the best

available scientific and commercial data and received technical

information from Pacific Salmon Biological and Technical Committees

(PSBTCs) in Washington, Oregon, and California; a committee was not

convened in Idaho because coho salmon are extinct in that state (see

ESU Determinations). The PSBTCs consisted of scientists (from Federal,

state, and local resource agencies, Indian tribes, industries,

professional societies, and public interest groups) that have technical

expertise relevant to coho salmon. While NMFS' status review focused on

coho salmon populations in Washington, Oregon, and California, the

geographic scope was broadened to include populations from southern

British Columbia, due to their potential similarity to coho salmon

populations in Washington.

A NMFS Biological Review Team, comprised of staff from NMFS'

Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC) and Southwest Regional

Office, has completed a coastwide status review for coho salmon

(Memorandum to G. Smith from M. Schiewe, July 5, 1994, Preliminary

Conclusions of the Northwest Science Center's Review of a Petition to

List Oregon Populations of Coho Salmon under the U.S. Endangered

Species Act; Memorandum to W. Stelle from M. Schiewe, September 2,

1994, Status Review of Coho Salmon from California, Oregon, and

Washington; Memorandum to W. Stelle from M. Schiewe, February 22, 1995,

Puget Sound Coho Salmon; Memorandum to R. Schmitten from W. Stelle,

March 20, 1995, Puget Sound Coho Salmon. Copies of the memoranda are

available upon request (see ADDRESSES). The review, summarized below,

identifies six ESUs of coho salmon from southern British Columbia,

Washington, Oregon, and California. NMFS is now issuing a proposed rule

to list three ESUs as threatened under the ESA. Full results of NMFS'

status review of coho salmon populations will be published in a

forthcoming NOAA Technical Memorandum.

Biological Background

Coho salmon are anadromous, meaning they migrate from the ocean to

spawn in fresh water. The species was historically distributed

throughout the North Pacific Ocean from central California to Point

Hope, AK, through the Aleutian Islands, and from the Anadyr River,

Russia, south to Hokkaido, Japan. Historically, this species probably

inhabited most coastal streams in Washington, Oregon, and central and

northern California. Some populations, now considered extinct, are

believed to have migrated hundreds of miles inland to spawn in

tributaries of the upper Columbia River in Washington, and the Snake

River in Idaho.

In contrast to the life history patterns of other anadromous

salmonids, coho salmon in the region under status review generally

exhibit a relatively simple, 3 year life cycle. Adults typically begin

their freshwater spawning migration in the late summer and fall, spawn

by mid-winter, then die. Run and spawn timing of adult coho salmon

varies between and within coastal and Columbia River Basin populations

(see Ecological/Genetic Diversity). Depending on temperature, eggs

incubate in ``redds'' (gravel nests excavated by spawning females) for

1.5 to 4 months before hatching as ``alevins'' (a larval life stage

dependent on food stored in a yolk sac). Following yolk sac absorption,

alevins emerge from the gravel as young juveniles or ``fry'' and begin

actively feeding. Juveniles rear in fresh water for up to 15 months,

then migrate to the ocean as ``smolts'' in the spring. Coho salmon

typically spend two growing seasons in the ocean before returning to

their natal stream to spawn as 3 year-olds. Some precocious males,

called ``jacks,'' return to spawn after only 6 months at sea.

During this century, indigenous, naturally-reproducing populations

of coho salmon are believed to have been extirpated in nearly all

Columbia River tributaries and to be in decline in numerous coastal

streams in Washington, Oregon, and California. At least 33 populations

have been identified by agencies and conservation groups as being at

moderate or high risk of extinction. In general, there is a geographic

trend in the status of West Coast coho salmon stocks, with the

southernmost and easternmost stocks in the worst condition.

Consideration as a ``Species'' Under the ESA

To qualify for listing as a threatened or endangered species, the

identified populations of coho salmon must be considered ``species''

under the ESA. The ESA defines a ``species'' to include any ``distinct

population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which

interbreeds when mature.'' NMFS published a policy (56 FR 58612,

November 20, 1991) describing how the agency will apply the ESA

definition of ``species'' to anadromous salmonid species. This policy

provides that a salmonid population will be considered distinct, and

hence a species under the ESA, if it represents an ESU of the

biological species. A population must satisfy two criteria to be

considered an ESU: (1) It must be reproductively isolated from other

conspecific population units, and (2) it must represent an important

component in the evolutionary legacy of the biological species. The

first criterion, reproductive isolation, need not be absolute, but must

be strong enough to permit evolutionarily important differences to

accrue in different population units. The second criterion is met if

the population contributes substantially to the ecological/genetic

diversity of the species as a whole. Guidance on the application of

this policy is contained in a scientific paper ``Pacific Salmon

(Oncorhynchus spp.) and the Definition of `Species' under the

Endangered Species Act'' and a NOAA Technical Memorandum ``Definition

of `Species' Under the Endangered Species Act: Application to Pacific

Salmon,'' which are available upon request (see ADDRESSES). The

following sections describe the genetic, ecological, and life history

characteristics, as well as human-induced genetic changes that NMFS

assessed to determine the number and geographic extent of coho salmon

ESUs.

International ESUs

In the case of Pacific salmon and anadromous trout, it is likely

that a coastwide status review will result in the identification of one

or more ESUs that, from a biological standpoint, include populations

from foreign countries (e.g., Canada). The ESA encourages international

efforts to protect threatened or endangered species and authorizes NMFS

to list species occurring in foreign countries after taking into

account any efforts being made to protect the species.

[[Page 38013]]

Reproductive Isolation

A review of published accounts indicates that homing fidelity in

coho salmon is generally strong, with low levels of straying (about 1

percent) estimated for most natural populations that have been studied.

On the other hand, coho salmon habitat typically includes small

tributaries that experience relatively frequent, temporary blockages,

and there are a number of examples in which coho salmon have rapidly

recolonized vacant habitat that had only recently become accessible to

anadromous fish. Because ESU determinations focus on units that are

strongly isolated over evolutionarily important time frames, NMFS

concludes that, in general, local spawning populations of coho salmon

are unlikely to meet the criterion of reproductive isolation. However,

groups of local populations among tributaries within a river drainage

may experience substantial, long-term isolation from other such groups.

Genetic data provide useful indirect information on reproductive

isolation because they integrate information about migration and gene

flow over evolutionarily important time frames. The Genetics Project

within the NWFSC is developing a coastwide database of protein

electrophoretic data for coho salmon, and the database now includes

information for 53 polymorphic gene loci in samples from over 100

populations covering a geographic range from the Trinity River, CA, to

Bristol Bay, AK. Published results from several other studies of

genetic characteristics of coho salmon populations were also

considered. These included additional studies based on protein

electrophoresis (Olin 1984, Solazzi 1986, Reisenbichler and Phelps

1987, Wehrhahn and Powell 1987, Bartley 1987, Gall 1991), an

agglomerative approach based on data from life history, morphology, and

protein electrophoresis (Hjort and Schreck 1982), and two recent

studies of variation at the DNA level (Currens and Farnsworth 1993, who

examined variation at mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and Forbes et al. 1993,

who examined variation in nuclear DNA).

Although collectively these studies show that the pattern of

relationships among populations is complex, there is a strong

geographic component to the observed population structure, and several

major stock groupings can be identified. While a few individual samples

proved to be exceptions to the general patterns, possible explanations

for these results include true ancestral relationships, stock

transfers, and random variation in an analysis involving a large number

of samples. Major stock groupings resulting from NMFS' analysis are

described below.

Southern Oregon/California--Because the NMFS data set included only

a single sample from California, the analysis was supplemented with

published data from Olin (1984), Bartley (1987), and Gall (1991). This

resulted in data for 13 polymorphic gene loci for 26 samples from

southern Oregon (south of Cape Blanco) and California, including 4 from

the NMFS data set. Limitations of this analysis are that many sample

sizes were small, and data were not available for some of the most

variable gene loci. Nevertheless, results clearly show two major

geographic clusters in this region, separated by a relatively large

genetic distance. The northern (and primarily large-river) group

includes 12 samples ranging from the Elk River (just south of Cape

Blanco) to the Eel River (just north of Cape Mendocino). The southern

(and primarily small-river) group includes 11 samples, spanning a

geographic range from Fort Bragg to Tomales Bay. There is considerable

genetic diversity within both groups, particularly the northern. Three

small-river samples from the southern region (Scott, Cottoneva, and

Pudding Creeks) are outliers to both of the major groups, and

Huckleberry Creek (Eel River Basin) is only loosely allied to the

northern group.

Oregon coast--The NMFS study shows that samples of coho salmon from

the Oregon coast are genetically distinct from other coastal and

Columbia River populations. In addition, there is evidence for genetic

differentiation within this group. Samples from four hatcheries on the

northern Oregon coast form a group that is well differentiated from

other samples. It is not known how accurately these samples reflect

genetic characteristics of coho salmon native to this area. Most

samples from the Oregon coast are part of a large genetic cluster. This

cluster includes both natural and hatchery populations. A third cluster

within the Oregon coastal group consists of wild and hatchery samples

from the Elk and Umpqua Rivers that also share some degree of

similarity with a hatchery sample from the Rogue River.

Hjort and Schreck (1982) also found that a group of hatchery

populations from northern Oregon was distinct from other hatchery and

natural populations along the Oregon coast. Their study further

indicated that Oregon coastal populations of coho salmon differed from

those in other regions, including the Columbia River Basin, California,

and Washington. Results obtained by Olin (1984) and Solazzi (1986) are

generally consistent with the patterns described above. In addition,

Solazzi (1986) found that two wild populations from the north coast of

Oregon, which were not included in the NMFS data set, clustered with

hatchery samples from northern Oregon.

Recent DNA data for Oregon coho salmon are largely consistent with

results based on protein electrophoretic analyses. Currens and

Farnsworth (1993) identified three major groups within Oregon: (1)

North and central Oregon coastal populations, (2) Columbia River

populations, and (3) south Oregon coastal populations and two unusual

Columbia River populations--the Clatskanie and Clackamas Rivers. Forbes

et al. (1993) reported highly significant differences between Columbia

River and Oregon coastal coho salmon, but only marginal differences

among stocks within these regions.

Lower Columbia River--Another major cluster in the NMFS analysis

includes all of the lower Columbia River samples, as well as samples

from the southwest Washington coast. Within this larger group, several

smaller clusters can be identified. Two of the subclusters, one

dominated by samples from Washington and the other by samples from

Oregon, include most of the samples from the lower Columbia River.

Another subcluster contains three samples from Willapa Bay on the

southwest Washington coast. A final subcluster includes samples from

the Clackamas and Clatskanie Rivers in the lower Columbia River and

samples from the Humptulips and Simpson Hatcheries on the southwest

Washington coast. As noted above, Currens and Farnsworth also found a

genetic similarity between samples from the Clackamas and Clatskanie

Rivers, based on mtDNA markers.

Puget Sound, Strait of Georgia, and Olympic Peninsula--The few

samples NMFS examined from Alaska and the upper Fraser River, Canada,

are substantially different genetically from all U.S. populations and

are not considered further here. In contrast, samples NMFS has examined

from Puget Sound and the Strait of Georgia form a coherent genetic

cluster. Closely allied to this Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia group is

a group of populations from the northwestern Olympic Peninsula

(northern coast of Washington and the western end of the Strait of Juan

de Fuca). In earlier studies, Reisenbichler and Phelps (1987) found

little geographic structure among samples of coho salmon from the

northern coast of Washington, whereas Wehrhahn and Powell (1987) found

[[Page 38014]]

significant differences between samples from the upper Fraser River and

the lower coastal mainland of British Columbia. However, because some

rare alleles were shared between the latter two areas, Wehrharn and

Powell concluded that there are no absolute barriers to dispersal of

coho salmon between the lower coastal mainland, lower Vancouver Island,

and the Fraser River.

Ecological/Genetic Diversity

Several types of physical and biological evidence were considered

in evaluating the contribution of coho salmon from southern British

Columbia, Washington, Oregon, and California to the ecological/genetic

diversity of the biological species throughout its range. Factors

examined included: (1) The physical environment--geology, soil type,

air temperature, precipitation, river flow patterns, water temperature,

and ocean conditions/upwelling; (2) biogeography--marine, estuarine,

and freshwater fish distributions, and vegetation; and (3) life-history

traits--smolt size and outmigration timing, age and size at spawning,

river entry timing, spawning timing, and marine coded-wire-tag (CWT)

recoveries. The relative magnitudes of potential human-induced genetic

changes were also considered. The physical and zoogeographic evidence

supporting the delineation of each ESU is addressed under ``ESU

Determinations.'' Because life history traits provide important insight

into the ecological/genetic diversity of the species and can reflect

unusual or distinctive adaptations that promote evolutionary processes,

a more detailed discussion has been provided below.

Coho salmon life-history traits that show some regional variation

include river entry and spawning timing, age at maturity, and marine

CWT recovery patterns. River entry and spawning timing patterns of coho

salmon are considerably variable in time and space, but some regional

patterns exist. Puget Sound coho salmon typically enter the rivers in

October, but some basins have very early and late runs. Along the

Washington coast, river entry generally occurs in October, with a few

exceptionally late or early runs. Historically, Columbia River coho

salmon entered fresh water from August through December, while Oregon

coho salmon enter rivers in October. Coho salmon in southern Oregon and

northern California also enter rivers in September or October. River

entry is much later south of the Klamath River Basin, occurring in

November and December in basins south of the Klamath River to the

Mattole River, CA, and from mid-December to mid-February in rivers

farther south.

Spawning timing shows less variation than river entry, but it has

similar patterns. Along most of the Washington and Oregon coasts and in

Puget Sound, coho salmon spawn in November and December, with

exceptionally early and late runs occurring along the Washington coast,

in the Columbia River, and in Puget Sound. Spawning in southern Oregon

and northern California also occurs in December, but south of the

Mattole River it occurs most frequently in January. Because coho salmon

enter rivers late and spawn late south of the Mattole River, they spend

much less time in the river prior to spawning than do coho salmon

farther north. Coho salmon adults in the three-state area

overwhelmingly (>95%) spawn at age 3, spending just over a year in

fresh water and a year and a half in the ocean (Sandercock 1991). In

contrast, many coho salmon adults from southeast Alaska spend over 2

years in fresh water and return to spawn at age 4. It is not known

exactly where the transition occurs between these two age structures,

but limited information suggests that an increasing proportion of 2

year-old smolts is seen in coho salmon as one approaches the north end

of Vancouver Island from the south.

The life-history trait showing the clearest differentiation

coastwide is the pattern of ocean distribution inferred from marine

recoveries of hatchery fish carrying CWTs. These data, from the Pacific

States Marine Fisheries Commission's regional Mark Information System,

show that marked coho salmon from southern Oregon and northern

California are most frequently recovered from California coastal waters

(65 to 92 percent), with some recoveries off Oregon (7 to 34 percent),

but almost none off Washington or British Columbia. In contrast, coho

salmon from the Oregon coast north of Cape Blanco are recovered

primarily in Oregon waters (57 to 60 percent), with significant

appearance in California (27 to 39 percent), and low but fairly

consistent recovery levels from British Columbia (2 to 6 percent) and

Washington (2 to 9 percent). Compared to the Oregon coast populations,

Columbia River populations have approximately the same proportion of

British Columbia (2 to 16 percent) and Oregon (36 to 67 percent)

recoveries, but the California recoveries are considerably lower (1 to

15 percent) and the Washington recoveries correspondingly higher (22 to

54 percent).

Populations from the Washington coast, Puget Sound, and British

Columbia have much more northern recovery patterns than those from

either the Columbia River or the Oregon coast, although distinctive

patterns within Washington and British Columbia are not as obvious as

those for groups farther south. Coho salmon released from central

British Columbia were frequently recovered off Alaska (15 to 39

percent), with the remainder of the recoveries coming from British

Columbia (61 to 85 percent). Coho salmon released along the east and

west coasts of Vancouver Island and the southwest British Columbia

mainland are caught almost exclusively in British Columbia (90 to 99

percent), with infrequent recoveries in Alaska (less than 1 percent),

Washington (0 to 9 percent), and Oregon (less than 2 percent). Coho

salmon released from Puget Sound, Hood Canal, and the Strait of Juan de

Fuca are recovered from Washington (23 to 72 percent), British Columbia

(27 to 74 percent), and Oregon (0 to 3 percent), with essentially no

recoveries from Alaska or California. Coho salmon from the Washington

coast have similar CWT recovery patterns, but have higher Oregon

recoveries than Puget Sound/Hood Canal coho salmon.

Because Puget Sound and Hood Canal coho salmon are caught at high

levels in Puget Sound, an area not entered by coho salmon from other

areas, recoveries from this area might be considered an extension of

freshwater recoveries, which were excluded from the above analyses.

Removing Puget Sound recoveries from total Washington marine recoveries

results in Puget Sound and Hood Canal coho salmon recovery patterns

that are intermediate to those of British Columbia and the Washington

coast.

Genetic Changes Due to Human Activities

The effects of artificial propagation and other human activities

can be relevant to ESA listing determinations in two ways. First, such

activities can genetically change natural populations so much that they

no longer represent an evolutionarily significant component of the

biological species (Waples 1991). For example, in 1991, NMFS concluded

that, as a result of massive and prolonged effects of artificial

propagation, harvest, and habitat degradation, the agency could not

identify natural populations of coho salmon in the lower Columbia River

that qualified for ESA consideration. Second, risks to the viability

and genetic integrity of native salmon populations posed by human

activities may contribute to their threatened or endangered status

(Goodman 1990, Hard

[[Page 38015]]

et al. 1992). The severity of these effects on natural populations

depends both on the nature of the effects (e.g., harvest rate, gear

size, or type of hatchery practice) and their magnitude (e.g., duration

of a hatchery program and number and life-history stage of hatchery

fish involved). Several of these factors may be important to ESA

considerations of coho salmon.

Stock transfers--Stock transfers of coho salmon have been (and

continue to be) common throughout the West Coast; the nature and

magnitude of these transfers varies by geographic region. Compared to

areas farther north, hatcheries in central California and southern

Oregon/northern California are relatively small and widely dispersed,

given the size of both areas. In recent years, large hatcheries in

southern Oregon/northern California (e.g., Mad and Trinity Hatcheries)

have produced 400,000 to 500,000 juveniles annually, while smaller

hatcheries, and most hatcheries in central California, produce no more

than 100,000 to 200,000 juveniles each year. There has been

considerable transfer of coho salmon among hatcheries or egg-taking

stations in central and northern California, with the fish eventually

outplanted in either area. Northern California hatcheries have also

received fairly large transplants of coho salmon from hatcheries in

Washington and Oregon, which have spread to central California through

stock transfers. Because of the predominance of hatchery stocks in the

Klamath River Basin, stock transfers into Trinity and Iron Gate

Hatcheries may have had a substantial impact on natural populations in

the basin. In contrast, Cole Rivers Hatchery (on the Rogue River)

appears to have relied almost exclusively on native stocks.

Most Oregon coastal hatcheries produce approximately 400,000 to

1,400,000 juveniles annually, although private hatcheries (no longer in

operation) recently produced 2 to 5 million juvenile coho salmon

annually. Most transfers of coho salmon into Oregon coastal hatcheries

have used other Oregon coastal stocks. However, some coastal hatchery

programs (notably private hatcheries no longer in existence) made

extensive use of Puget Sound coho salmon stocks. Some transfers of

Columbia River coho salmon into Oregon coastal hatcheries have

occurred, but these were relatively infrequent and minor. Similarly,

most outplants of coho salmon into Oregon coastal rivers have used

Oregon coastal stocks, with outplants of stocks from other areas being

relatively small and infrequent.

Southwest Washington hatcheries are relatively large and numerous

for the area, and most produce 1 to 3 million juveniles annually.

Hatcheries in southwest Washington have used native stocks in addition

to those from Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia, Olympic Peninsula, and the

Columbia River. Currently, the magnitude and frequency of stock

transfers from outside the area are relatively small. Within southwest

Washington, there has been some movement of stocks between rivers

draining into Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay. Outplants show a similar

pattern to hatchery transfers; coho salmon from Puget Sound/Strait of

Georgia, Olympic Peninsula, and a limited number from the Columbia

River have been outplanted in southwest Washington, but the most

frequent and largest outplants have used southwest Washington stocks.

Hatchery production of coho salmon in the Columbia River far

exceeds that of any other area with respect to the number of hatcheries

and quantities of fish produced. Many Columbia River hatcheries produce

several million smolts annually, with the largest hatcheries releasing

up to 10 million smolts in a given year. Extensive stock transfers have

occurred within the Columbia River, both within and between hatcheries

from Washington and Oregon. Prior to about 1960, transfers of coho

salmon from the Oregon coast were also common, and there have been a

few introductions of Puget Sound stocks. Columbia River outplanting

records show a similar pattern of extensive use of Columbia River and

Oregon coast coho salmon, and some Puget Sound stocks. The Clackamas

River has also been extensively outplanted with early-running Columbia

River stocks and was outplanted with coho salmon from the Oregon coast

in 1967.

Most Olympic Peninsula hatcheries produce approximately 1 million

juvenile coho salmon annually. In addition to hatchery production,

natural production in the area is relatively high, due in large part to

nearly pristine habitat within the Olympic National Park. The

Quillayute Hatchery has relied primarily on native stocks, while other

hatcheries in the area have incorporated stocks from southwest

Washington, Puget Sound, and the Columbia River, in addition to Olympic

Peninsula stocks. These transfers from outside the Olympic Peninsula

are generally considered to represent only a minor contribution to the

existing hatchery stocks. Olympic Peninsula drainages are primarily

outplanted with Olympic Peninsula stocks; however, some outplants of

Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia, southwest Washington, and Columbia River

stocks have occurred.

Hatchery production in the Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia is

extensive, and many of the larger hatcheries produce several million

smolts annually. However, this geographic area is quite large and

considerable natural production also occurs. Stock transfers and

outplants have also been extensive, but most stocks involved have been

derived from within this area. Net pen production in Puget Sound is

also fairly extensive, but unlike hatcheries, has no means to attract

and spawn salmon that are released from the pens. This can result in

straying of pen-reared coho salmon into adjacent rivers.

Run timing--Advancement and compression of run timing are common

phenomena in hatchery populations, and these changes can affect future

generations of naturally-reproducing fish. Fry of early-spawning adults

generally hatch earlier and grow faster, and can thus displace fry of

later-spawning natural fish (Chapman 1962). Conversely, early-spawning

coho salmon redds are more prone to being destroyed by early fall

floods. Consequently, early-spawning individuals may be unable to

establish permanent, self-sustaining populations, but may nevertheless

adversely affect existing natural populations (Solazzi et al. 1990). A

recent study found that over a period of 13 years, the range of

spawning timing of coho salmon at five Washington hatcheries decreased

from 10 weeks to 3 weeks, causing the range of the period of return to

the hatcheries to decrease by one-half (Flagg et al. in press).

Juvenile outplants--Another common hatchery practice with coho

salmon is release of ``excess'' hatchery production into natural

habitat as fry or parr. Outplanting large numbers of large hatchery

juveniles into streams already occupied by naturally-produced juveniles

may place the resident fish at a competitive disadvantage and may force

them into marginal habitats that have low survival potential (Chapman

1962, Solazzi et al. 1990).

Adult size--Ricker (1981) discussed evidence for declines in size

and age of Pacific salmon in this century and suggested that size-

selective fisheries were an important factor in the observed trends.

Gill nets are probably the most size-selective fishing gear in general

use, preferentially harvesting larger fish. Gillnet fisheries are

important components of coho salmon harvests in most areas of the

Pacific Northwest. Between 1972 and 1993, the size of coho salmon

sampled from in-river gillnet

[[Page 38016]]

fisheries in Puget Sound decreased by about one-half, and a similar

declining pattern has been observed by other researchers for the Strait

of Georgia (Ricker 1981). There is some evidence for declining size of

coho salmon outside the Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia area, but the

trends are not as great in other areas.

Declines in adult size can have direct implications for individual

reproductive success and population viability. As is the case in other

salmon species, coho salmon fecundity is a non-linear function of size

(Fleming and Gross 1989), such that a small reduction in size can lead

to a substantial reduction in fecundity. Also, smaller coho salmon

females dig fewer and significantly shallower redds than do larger

females (van den Berghe and Gross 1984). This subjects the redds of

smaller individuals to greater risk of destruction by superimposition

of other redds or scouring by floods. Flooding frequency has increased

throughout much of Puget Sound because of habitat degradation (Booth

1991), further decreasing the survival potential of redds created by

small females.

It is not clear whether the dramatic size reductions observed in

Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia coho salmon are due to harvest practices,

effects of fish culture, declining ocean productivity, density-

dependent effects in the marine environment attributable to large

numbers of hatchery releases, or a combination of these factors.

Similarly, it is not known whether there have been permanent genetic

changes related to the size changes in the populations. Regardless of

its cause or genetic basis, reduced adult size in itself poses a number

of serious risks to natural populations of coho salmon, and could be a

sign of other factors placing the population at risk.

ESU Determinations

This is the first NMFS status review that attempts to

comprehensively determine ESUs over a broad geographic area. The ESU

determinations described here represent a synthesis of a large amount

of diverse information. In general, the proposed geographic boundaries

for each ESU (i.e., the watersheds within which the members of the ESU

are typically found) are supported by several lines of evidence that

show similar patterns. However, the diverse data sets are not always

entirely congruent (nor would they be expected to be), and the proposed

boundaries are not necessarily the only ones possible. For example, in

some cases (e.g., on the northern Olympic Peninsula moving from west to

east), environmental changes occur over a transition zone rather than

abruptly.

Based on the best available biological and commercial information,

including the biological effects of human activities, NMFS has

identified six ESUs that include coho salmon populations from southern

British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, and California. The six ESUs are

briefly described and characterized below. Genetic data (from studies

of protein electrophoresis and DNA) were the primary evidence

considered for the reproductive isolation criterion, supplemented by

inferences about barriers to migration created by natural geographic

features and human-induced changes resulting from artificial

propagation and harvest. Factors considered to be most informative in

evaluating ecological/genetic diversity include data pertaining to the

physical environment, ocean conditions/upwelling, vegetation, estuarine

and freshwater fish distributions, river entry and spawning timing, and

marine CWT recoveries. A brief description of population segments now

considered to be extinct has also been provided.

(1) Central California Coast

The geographic boundaries of this ESU extend from Punta Gorda in

northern California to the San Lorenzo River, in Santa Cruz, CA, and

includes coho salmon populations from several tributaries of San

Francisco Bay (e.g. Corte Madera and Mill Valley Creeks). Genetic data

indicate that most samples from this region differ substantially from

coho salmon north of Punta Gorda. Run- and spawn-timing of coho salmon

are very late (peaking in January) and appear to be timed to coincide

with the single, brief peak of river flow. Freshwater fishes in the

region are derived from the Sacramento River fauna. This area is

characterized by very erosive soils in the coast range mountains;

redwood forest is the dominant coastal vegetation for these drainages.

Precipitation is lower here than in areas to the north, and elevated

stream temperatures (greater than 20 deg. C) are common in the summer.

Coastal upwelling in this region is strong and consistent, resulting in

a relatively productive nearshore marine environment. Limited CWT data

indicate that nearly all coho salmon from this ESU are captured in

California waters.

Available information indicates that the San Lorenzo River

currently is the southernmost population of coho salmon, and this is

the geographic boundary for the proposed ESU. However, it should be

recognized that any coho salmon found spawning south of the San Lorenzo

River that have not resulted from stock transfers from outside the ESU

are also part of the ESU.

(2) Southern Oregon/northern California Coasts

This ESU includes coho salmon from coastal drainages between Cape

Blanco in southern Oregon and Punta Gorda in northern California.

Genetic data indicate that most samples from this region differ

substantially from coho salmon from south of Punta Gorda. In general,

populations from southern Oregon also differ from coastal Oregon

populations north of Cape Blanco. However, some samples from the Rogue

River show an unexplained genetic affinity to samples from outside the

region, including some from the Columbia River. In addition, a sample

from the Elk River (just south of Cape Blanco) clusters with samples

from the Umpqua River. In contrast to coho salmon from north of Cape

Blanco, which are most frequently captured off Oregon, coho salmon from

this region are captured primarily in California waters. Freshwater

fishes in this region include elements of the Sacramento River fauna,

as well as from the Klamath-Rogue Ichthyofaunal Region.

Geologically, this region includes the Klamath Mountains Province,

which is not as erosive as the Franciscan formation terrains south of

the Klamath River Basin. Dominant vegetation along the coast is redwood

forest, while some interior basins are much drier than surrounding

areas and are characterized by many endemic species. Elevated stream

temperatures are a factor in some of the larger river basins, but not

to the extent that they are in river basins south of Punta Gorda. With

the exception of major river basins such as the Rogue and Klamath, most

rivers in this region have short duration of peak flows. Strong and

consistent coastal upwelling begins at about Cape Blanco and continues

south into central California, resulting in a relatively productive

nearshore marine environment.

(3) Oregon Coast

This ESU includes coho salmon from Oregon coastal drainages between

Cape Blanco and the Columbia River. Genetically, coastal Oregon

populations are distinct from Columbia River, Washington coastal, and

northern California/southern Oregon (see above) populations. Within the

Oregon coast ESU, hatchery populations from the north Oregon coast form

a distinctive subgroup. Adult run- and spawn-timing are similar to

those along the

[[Page 38017]]

Washington coast and in the Columbia River, but less variable. CWT

recovery patterns for coho salmon released from this area are

distinctive, compared to recovery patterns for coho salmon released

from ESUs to the north or south. Freshwater fish fauna are primarily of

Columbia River origin. Most rivers in this area drain the Coast Range

Mountains, have a single peak in flow in December or January, and have

relatively low flow during summer and early fall. The coastal region

receives fairly high precipitation levels, and the vegetation is

dominated by Sitka spruce and western hemlock. Upwelling off the Oregon

coast is much more variable and generally weaker than areas south of

Cape Blanco. While marine conditions off the Oregon and Washington

coasts are similar, the Columbia River has greater influence north of

its mouth, and the continental shelf becomes broader off the Washington

coast.

(4) Lower Columbia River/southwest Washington Coast

NMFS has concluded that, historically, this ESU included coho

salmon from all tributaries of the Columbia River below approximately

the Klickitat and Deschutes Rivers, as well as coastal drainages in

southwest Washington between the Columbia River and Point Grenville.

The Columbia River estuary and Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor in

southwest Washington all have extensive intertidal mud and sand flats

and differ substantially from estuaries to the north and south. This

similarity results from the shared geology of the area and the

transportation of Columbia River sediments northward along the

Washington coast. Rivers draining into the Columbia River have their

headwaters in increasingly drier areas, moving from west to east.

Columbia River tributaries that drain the Cascade Mountains have

proportionally higher flows in late summer and early fall than rivers

on the Oregon coast. CWT data indicate a distinctive oceanic

distribution pattern for Columbia River coho salmon, with a higher

percentage of Washington recoveries than for Oregon coastal stocks and

a much lower percentage of British Columbia recoveries than for

Washington coastal populations.

Genetic data indicate that Columbia River coho salmon are distinct

from coastal Oregon populations but are similar to populations from

several coastal streams in southwest Washington. A major cluster

includes all of the lower Columbia River samples, as well as samples

from the southwest Washington coast. Within this larger group, several

smaller clusters can be identified. Two of the subclusters, one

dominated by samples from Washington and the other by samples from

Oregon, include most of the samples from the lower Columbia River.

Another subcluster contains three samples from Willapa Bay on the

southwest Washington coast. A final subcluster includes samples from

the Clackamas and Clatskanie Rivers in the lower Columbia River and

samples from the Humptulips and Simpson Hatcheries on the southwest

Washington coast.

In its 1990-91 status review for lower Columbia River coho salmon

(excluding the Clackamas River), NMFS concluded that, historically, at

least one ESU of coho salmon probably occurred in the lower Columbia

River Basin, but the agency was unable to identify any remaining

natural populations that warranted protection under the ESA (58 FR

29553, June 27, 1991). This status review has not uncovered substantial

new information on coho salmon populations considered by that earlier

status review. However, NMFS has concluded that, historically, coho

salmon from the Clackamas River and the southwest Washington coast were

probably part of the same ESU as lower Columbia River coho salmon.

Late-run Clackamas River coho salmon are thought to at least partially

represent native, lower Columbia River coho salmon. The relationship of

coho salmon in these two areas to the historic ESU is uncertain.

The Clackamas River historically supported a native, late-run

(spawning in December and January) coho salmon population, but access

to the upper Clackamas River (above River Mile [RM] 29) was blocked

between 1917 and 1939, when the fish ladder on Cazadero Dam failed.

After fish passage was restored, late-run coho salmon recolonized the

upper Clackamas River. The immigrants are thought to have been

primarily natural coho salmon from either the lower Clackamas River,

the lower Willamette River, or elsewhere in the lower Columbia River.

In 1958, releases of early-run (spawning in October and November) coho

salmon of mixed lower Columbia River lineage began in the Clackamas

River. Because the timing of early-run and late-run Clackamas coho

salmon overlapped extensively, the spawning timings of the two

populations may have also overlapped, resulting in mixing of the stocks

in the hatchery or on the spawning grounds. Recent (post-1980)

divergence of run-timing between early- and late-run coho salmon in the

Clackamas River is generally attributed to intensive fishing pressure

during the middle part of the run.

Information available to NMFS at the present time is not sufficient

to identify any native populations of coho salmon on the southwest

Washington coast that would qualify for protection under the ESA.

However, we cannot exclude the possibility that some native late-run

coho salmon occur in the Chehalis River basin.

(5) Olympic Peninsula

The geographic boundaries of this ESU are entirely within

Washington, including coastal drainages from Point Grenville to and

including Salt Creek (Strait of Juan de Fuca). Genetic data show that

coho salmon from this region are distinct from populations to the south

and somewhat differentiated from populations in the Puget Sound area.

Coho salmon from the Olympic Peninsula ESU have a more northern ocean

distribution than populations from the Columbia River or coastal

regions in Oregon, and are more commonly captured in Canadian and

Oregonian waters than are coho salmon from the Puget Sound region. This

region is characterized by high levels of precipitation and streams

with cold water, high average flows, and a relatively long duration of

peak flows, including a second peak later in the year resulting from

snow melt. In contrast to the more inland areas of Puget Sound, where

western hemlock is the dominant forest cover at sea level, lowland

vegetation in this region is dominated by Sitka spruce.

The west coast of Vancouver Island in British Columbia shares many

of the physical and environmental features of the Olympic Peninsula

ESU. However, NMFS has little biological information for coho salmon

from this area. The Strait of Juan de Fuca is potentially a strong

isolating mechanism, and, although comparable data are not available

for coho salmon, genetic data for chinook salmon show that populations

from the west coast of Vancouver Island differ genetically from those

on the northern Washington coast. Therefore, at least until more

complete information becomes available, NMFS has concluded that this

ESU does not include coho salmon from Vancouver Island.

(6) Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia

This ESU includes coho salmon from drainages of Puget Sound and

Hood Canal, the eastern Olympic Peninsula (east of Salt Creek), and the

Strait of Georgia from the eastern side of Vancouver Island and the

British Columbia mainland (excluding the

[[Page 38018]]

upper Fraser River). Genetic and CWT data both show substantial

differences between coho salmon from this region and those from the

Columbia River and more southern coasts, and more modest differences

between coho salmon from this region and populations from the Olympic

Peninsula. Coho salmon samples from Puget Sound and the Strait of

Georgia form a coherent genetic cluster. The few samples NMFS has

examined from Alaska and the upper Fraser River are substantially

different genetically from all Washington, Oregon, and California

populations. This region is drier than the rain forest area of the

western Olympic Peninsula and is dominated by western hemlock forests.

Streams are similar to those of the Olympic Peninsula, being

characterized by cold water, high average flows, and a relatively long

duration of peak flows, including a second snow-melt peak.

Drainages entering the Strait of Georgia from both sides share many

of the physical and environmental features that characterize the Puget

Sound area. From Vancouver Island south, coho salmon typically smolt at

age 1, whereas 2-year old smolts are common from southeast Alaska

north. Between the north end of Vancouver Island and southeast Alaska

is a transition zone for this life history trait. At about this point

(north end of Vancouver Island), the British Columbia mainland assumes

more of the physical and environmental characteristics of the outer

coast of Vancouver Island. However, genetic and life-history data for

populations between the Strait of Georgia and Queen Charlotte Strait

are insufficient to identify relationships between coho salmon in this

area and those to the north and south. Therefore, NMFS has concluded

that, at least until further information is developed, the geographic

boundaries of this ESU extend into Canada to include drainages from

both sides of the Strait of Georgia as far as the north end of the

Strait.

Extinctions Within the Historical Range

Historically, coho salmon have been reported to occur in U.S.

waters that are outside of the geographic areas covered by the proposed

ESUs. There are few early records documenting coho salmon in the

Sacramento River Basin, but it is believed that at least some

populations may have existed there prior to 1850 (Brown and Moyle 1991,

Bryant 1994). After that time, placer mining, dams, water diversions,

and other perturbations caused extreme habitat degradation throughout

the basin, and any coho salmon living there would have become extinct.

In recent decades, attempts have been made to reintroduce coho salmon

to the basin, but these attempts have not been successful. Intermittent

reports of small numbers of coho salmon in the Sacramento River are

generally attributed to strays or remnants of these stocking programs.

NMFS found no evidence that coho salmon eligible for ESA consideration

(i.e., indigenous, naturally-reproducing fish) presently occur in the

Sacramento River.

Although several tributaries in the upper Columbia River Basin,

including the Snake River, once supported coho salmon runs, NMFS is not

aware of any native coho salmon production in the upper basin at the

present time. Consequently, although the petitioners included Idaho

coho salmon in the petition, there are no coho salmon in Idaho that

would qualify for listing under the ESA. Columbia River stock summary

reports (CIS 1992) identify no coho salmon of native origin in this

region, except in the Hood and Deschutes Rivers in Oregon. According to

Nehlsen et al. (1991), all coho salmon above Bonneville Dam are

extinct, except those spawning in the Hood River. Both the Hood and

Deschutes Rivers have had extensive planting of hatchery coho salmon,

and no recent natural production estimates are available. Therefore,

NMFS has determined that the available evidence indicates that there

are no coho salmon populations above Bonneville Dam eligible for ESA

consideration at this time.

Status of the Coho Salmon ESUs

The ESA defines the term ``endangered species'' as ``any species

which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant

portion of its range.'' The term ``threatened species'' is defined as

``any species which is likely to become an endangered species within

the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its

range.'' Thompson (1991) suggested that conventional rules of thumb,

analytical approaches, and simulations may all be useful in making this

determination. In previous status reviews (e.g., Johnson et al. 1991),

NMFS has identified a number of factors that should be considered in

evaluating the level of risk faced by an ESU, including: (1) Absolute

numbers of fish and their spatial and temporal distribution; (2)

current abundance in relation to historical abundance and current

carrying capacity of the habitat; (3) trends in abundance; (4) natural

and human-influenced factors that cause variability in survival and

abundance; (5) possible threats to genetic integrity (e.g., from strays

or outplants from hatchery programs); and (6) recent events (e.g., a

drought or changes in harvest management) that have predictable short-

term consequences for abundance of the ESU.

During the coastwide status review for coho salmon, NMFS evaluated

both qualitative and quantitative information to determine whether any

proposed ESU is threatened or endangered according to the ESA.

Quantitative assessments were based on historical and recent run-size

estimates and time series of freshwater spawner and juvenile survey

data, angler catch estimates, harvest rate estimates, and counts of

adults migrating past dams. Qualitative evaluations considered recent,

published assessments by agencies or conservation groups of the status

of coho salmon stocks (Nehlsen et al. 1991, Higgins et al. 1992,

Nickelson et al. 1992, WDF et al. 1993). A summary of general findings

from qualitative assessments follows; specific results will be

discussed for each ESU.

Nehlsen et al. (1991) considered salmon stocks throughout

Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California and enumerated all stocks

that they found to be extinct or at risk of extinction. They considered

15 coho salmon stocks to be extinct, 2 possibly extinct, 15 at high

risk of extinction, 16 at moderate risk of extinction, and 2 of special

concern. Coho salmon stocks that do not appear in their summary were

either not at risk of extinction or there was insufficient information

to classify them. Higgins et al. (1992) used the same classification

scheme as Nehlsen et al. (1991), but provided a more detailed review of

northern California salmon stocks. Of the 20 coho salmon stocks Higgins

et al. identified as being at some risk of extinction, seven were

classified as at high risk of extinction and the remainder were

classified as of concern. Nickelson et al. (1992) rated coastal

(excluding Columbia River Basin) Oregon salmon stocks on the basis of

their status over the past 20 years, classifying stocks as

``depressed'' (spawning habitat underseeded, declining trends, or

recent escapements below long-term average), ``healthy'' (spawning

habitat fully seeded and stable or increasing trends), or ``of special

concern'' (300 or fewer spawners or a problem with hatchery

interbreeding). Of 55 coastal populations identified, 6 were classified

as ``healthy'', 2 as ``special concern'', 41 as ``depressed'', and 6 as

``unknown.'' WDF et al. (1993) categorized all salmon stocks in

Washington on the basis of stock origin (``native,'' ``non-native,''

``mixed,'' or ``unknown''), production

[[Page 38019]]

type (``wild,'' ``composite,'' or ``unknown'') and status (``healthy,''

``depressed,'' ``critical,'' or ``unknown''). Of the 90 coho salmon

stocks identified in Washington, 37 were classified as ``healthy,'' 35

as ``critical'' or ``depressed,'' and 18 as ``unknown.'' Of the 37

``healthy'' stocks, only 4 (all on the Olympic Peninsula) were

identified as ``native'' and ``wild'' production.

Despite recent regulations which have resulted in the closure or

severe curtailment of ocean and river harvest along much of the west

coast, the number of adult coho salmon returning in 1994 was very low

in some river basins. Many of the coho salmon populations which are not

in decline have a large hatchery-produced component that could hinder

the ability of natural populations to sustain themselves in the long

term. Habitat degradation, overfishing, inadequate regulatory

mechanisms, negative effects of artificial propagation programs,

drought and adverse ocean conditions over the last two decades are

believed to be factors contributing to the species' decline.

1. Central California Coast--Data are limited for determining the

status of this ESU. Recent population estimates have been compiled for

NMFS (Brown and Moyle 1991; Brown et al. 1994). Other recent status

reviews of coho salmon in California (Bryant 1994, CDFG 1994) have

expanded some of the work of Brown and Moyle (1991). In compiling

estimates of recent spawner abundance, Brown and Moyle relied on a

``20-fish rule'': If a stream with historic accounts of coho salmon

lacked recent data, it was assumed to still support a run of 20 adults;

if coho salmon were present in recent stream surveys, they used the

larger of 20 or the most recent run estimate. While these estimates are

crude, in most cases they are the best data available, and they are

generally comparable with other estimates (Bryant 1994, CDFG 1994,

Maahs and Gilleard 1994). Unless otherwise indicated, the recent

abundance data used to determine the status of this ESU are taken from

Brown et al. (1994).

Statewide (including areas outside this ESU) coho salmon spawning

escapement in California apparently ranged between 200,000 to 500,000

adults per year in the 1940s (Brown et al. 1994). By the mid-1960s,

statewide spawning escapement was estimated to have fallen to about

100,000 fish per year (CDFG 1965, California Advisory Committee on

Salmon and Steelhead Trout 1988), followed by a further decline to

about 30,000 fish in the mid-1980s (Wahle and Pearson 1987; Brown et

al. 1994). From 1987 to 1991, spawning escapement averaged about

31,000, with hatchery populations making up 57% of this total (Brown et

al. 1994). Brown et al. (1994) estimated that there are probably less

than 5,000 naturally-spawning coho salmon spawning in California each

year, and many of these fish are in populations that contain less than

100 individuals.

Estimated average coho salmon spawning escapement in the central

California coast ESU for the period from the early 1980's through 1991

was 6,160 naturally-spawning coho salmon and 332 hatchery spawned coho

salmon (Brown et al. 1994). Of the naturally-spawning coho salmon,

3,880 were from tributaries in which supplementation occurs (the Noyo

River and coastal streams south of San Francisco). Only 160 fish in the

range of this ESU (all in the Ten Mile River) were identified as

``native'' fish, lacking a history of supplementation with non-native

hatchery stocks. Based on redd counts, the estimated run of coho salmon

in the Ten Mile River during the 1991-92 spawning season was 14 to 42

fish (Maahs and Gilleard 1994).

Of 186 streams in the range of the central California ESU

identified as having historic accounts of adult coho salmon, recent

data exist for 133 (72 percent). Of these 133 streams, 62 (47 percent)

have recent records of occurrence of adult coho salmon and 71 (53

percent) no longer have coho salmon spawning runs. Nehlsen et al.

(1991) provided no information on individual coho salmon stocks in this

region, but identified stocks in small coastal streams north of San

Francisco as at moderate risk of extinction, and those in small coastal

streams south of San Francisco as at high risk of extinction. Higgins

et al. (1992) considered only drainages from the Russian River north,

but four coho salmon stocks within this ESU were identified as at risk:

Three of special concern and one (Gualala River) as at high risk of

extinction.

In comparison with ESUs that occur to the north, it is evident that

coho salmon populations in the central California ESU are more

depressed and at greater risk of extinction since the abundance of fish

is generally lower and a larger number of populations which occurred

historically have apparently been extirpated. However, the available

data for assessing population numbers and trends over time in the

northern portion of this ESU are limited for making a determination as

to whether or not the ESU warrants listing as threatened or endangered.

In the area south of San Francisco, however, it is clear that coho

salmon populations are severely depressed. For this reason, the

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) has determined that the

remaining coho populations south of San Francisco warrant protection as

an endangered species under the California Endangered Species Act.

However, in that portion of the ESU north of San Francisco, coho salmon

populations are more abundant, and in fact most of the fish within the

ESU occur there. Thus, while the southernmost populations in the ESU

may warrant endangered status, it is not clear that the ESU as a whole

is in imminent danger of extinction. In addition to this uncertainty,

several actions have been taken or are anticipated which are expected

to help protect and conserve coho populations in this ESU.

First, the State of California accepted a petition to list coho

populations south of San Francisco in 1994 under the California

Endangered Species Act and has been conducting a status review over the

past year. Since the petition was accepted, the coho populations

proposed for listing by the State have been protected under the State

ESA. The CDFG recently completed its review and recommended that these

populations be listed under State law as endangered. NMFS anticipates

that the State Fish and Game Commission will take action to list these

populations, and thereby implement protective actions, in the summer of

1995.

Second, the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) prohibited

the retention of coho salmon in both the commercial and recreational

salmon fisheries along the entire west coast in 1994. A similar action

prohibiting the retention of coho in all salmon fisheries south of Cape

Falcon has been implemented in 1995. These actions were taken because

of the depressed status of Oregon and California coastal coho stocks in

1994 and 1995, and are expected to immediately benefit these stocks by

increasing escapement.

Finally, the State of California Resources Agency has initiated an

effort to coordinate a broad state-wide habitat conservation planning

program designed to protect and conserve coho populations in California

under the State's Natural Communities Conservation Planning (NCCP)

program. This effort will involve the Federal government, all necessary

State agencies, county and local jurisdictions, and affected

stakeholders, and is aimed at developing a NCCP conservation program

for coho salmon which would serve as the basis for an ESA 4(d) rule

that could be promulgated by NMFS. The Resources Agency intends to

model this planning effort for coho salmon after the NCCP program which

was

[[Page 38020]]

developed and implemented for the California Gnatcatcher in southern

California. In a June 21, 1995 letter to NMFS, the Resources Agency

emphasized its belief that the conservation and recovery of coho salmon

in California can best be accomplished by development and

implementation of a NCCP conservation program and promulgation of a

special section 4(d) rule because of the complex nature of the

habitats, ownership patterns, and interests within the range of coho

salmon. In this regard, the Resources Agency has strongly urged that

NMFS propose coho salmon in California be listed as threatened so that

the full flexibility of section 4(d) rulemaking can be retained and the

NCCP planning process can move forward. NMFS believes that the NCCP

conservation planning process envisioned by the Resources Agency is the

best approach for developing and implementing a successful conservation

and recovery strategy for coho salmon in California. However, NMFS also

believes it is essential that a NCCP program be developed and

implemented as quickly as possible in order to arrest the decline of

coho salmon populations in this ESU and promote their successful

recovery. In its letter to NMFS, the Resources Agency recognizes the

importance of making demonstrable progress in developing an acceptable

program for conserving coho salmon in California.

Based on the uncertainty of the data and the high potential for

success of the developing NCCP conservation plan, NMFS concludes that

the central California coast coho salmon ESU should be proposed for

listing as a threatened species. However, during the period between

publication of this proposed rule and publication of any final rule,

NMFS will be gathering additional information to aid in making a final

determination concerning the status of this ESU. Specifically, NMFS

will: (1) Gather additional biological information on the status of

coho salmon populations in this ESU; (2) attempt to assess the response

of coho populations to the fishery conservation measures implemented by

the PFMC; (3) review and evaluate any new protective measures

implemented by the State of California resulting from the State listing

coho south of San Francisco; (4) review and evaluate any additional

protective or conservation measures implemented by State or private

entities; and (5) evaluate whether the Resources Agency has made

satisfactory progress in coordinating the development and

implementation of a long-term conservation and recovery strategy for

coho salmon in California.

NMFS will consider the State's progress in developing a coho salmon

habitat conservation strategy to be satisfactory if a framework

protection plan and associated implementation schedule are developed in

coordination with NMFS, non-federal agencies, and stakeholders within

the next 9 months. To be effective, this protection plan should include

both interim protective measures and a long-term protection and

monitoring plan. Any implementation schedule developed for the plan

should commit to implementation of the long-term component of the plan

within 1-2 years of any final federal listing determination. Finally,

any protection plan must incorporate increased monitoring of coho

salmon populations and habitat conditions so that the continuing status

of individual populations can be assessed, and the effectiveness of

conservation measures can be evaluated. This coordination effort by the

Resources Agency should focus on facilitating the development of local

Coordinated Resource Management Planning (CRMP) groups which in turn

could be integrated into larger scale bioregional planning groups. This

would provide for regional coordination of locally based efforts to

improve coho salmon habitat conditions. In the event that NMFS

determines there is any new information indicating that coho salmon

populations in this ESU are at greater risk of extinction than is

currently believed, or that satisfactory progress is not being made by

the Resources Agency on developing and implementing a coho conservation

program, then NMFS will reconsider this determination in its final

rulemaking.

2. Southern Oregon/northern California coasts--NMFS examined all

available data for naturally-reproducing coho salmon in this ESU.

Because this ESU includes spawning runs in both southern Oregon and

northern California, information available for inland recoveries and

spawning escapements differ widely by geographic area. Data for the

Oregon portion of this ESU include adult passage counts at Gold Ray Dam

in the upper Rogue River (Cramer et al. 1985), angler catch estimates

for all Oregon rivers (ODFW 1992, 1993), and seine-survey estimates of

adult coho salmon run size in the Rogue River (Cramer 1994).

Recently, most coho salmon production in the Oregon portion has

been in the Rogue River. Recent run-size estimates (1979-86, Cramer

1994) have ranged from approximately 800 to 19,800 naturally-produced

adults, and from 500 to 8,300 hatchery-produced adults. Average run

sizes for this period were 4,900 natural and 3,900 hatchery fish, with

the total run averaging 45 percent hatchery fish. Adult passage counts

at Gold Ray Dam provide a long-term view of coho salmon abundance in

the upper Rogue River (Cramer et al. 1985). In the 1940's, passage

counts averaged approximately 2,000 adults per year. Numbers declined

and fluctuated during the 1950's and early 1960's, then stabilized at

an average of fewer than 200 adults during the late 1960's and early

1970's. In the late 1970's, the run increased with returning fish

produced at Cole Rivers Hatchery. Angler catch of coho salmon in the

Rogue River fluctuated considerably, ranging from less than 50 (late

1970's) to a peak of about 800 in 1991; average annual catch over the

last 10 years has been about 250 fish. Angler catch in other rivers in

southern Oregon has been low, representing only a minor fraction of the

total south of Cape Blanco.

While there have been no directed spawner surveys for coho salmon

in this region, the species would be expected to be observed in the

annual chinook salmon spawner surveys. However, few coho salmon have

been observed in these surveys; for example, in 23 years of chinook

salmon surveys in six segments of the Elk River, the highest count of

coho salmon was 20 adults in 1971. In Oregon south of Cape Blanco,

Nehlsen et al. (1991) considered all but two coho salmon stocks to be

at high risk of extinction; of the remaining two, one (Euchre Creek)

was identified as extinct and the other (Hunter Creek) was not

mentioned. (The status of coho salmon in Euchre Creek is in some doubt:

No surveys have been conducted recently, but ODFW biologists believe

there may be a small coho salmon population there.) South of Cape

Blanco, all Oregon coho salmon stocks were rated by Nickelson et al.

(1992) as depressed.

Most information for the northern California region of this ESU was

recently summarized by the CDFG (CDFG 1994). They concluded that ``coho

salmon in California, including hatchery stocks, could be less than 6

percent of their abundance during the 1940's, and have experienced at

least a 70 percent decline in numbers since the 1960's'' (CDFG 1994, p.

5-6). The Klamath River Basin (including the Trinity River)

historically supported abundant coho salmon runs. In both systems, runs

have been greatly

[[Page 38021]]

diminished and are now composed largely of hatchery fish, although

there may be small wild runs remaining in some tributaries (CDFG 1994).

Of 396 streams within the range of this ESU identified as once having

coho salmon runs, Brown et al. (1994) were able to find recent survey

information on 117 (30 percent) streams. Of these 117 streams, 73 (64

percent) still supported coho salmon runs while 42 (36 percent) have

lost their coho salmon runs. The streams identified as presently

lacking coho salmon runs were all tributaries of the Klamath and Eel

River systems (Brown et al. 1994). The rivers and tributaries in the

California portion of this ESU were estimated to have average recent

runs of 7,080 natural spawners and 17,156 hatchery returns, with 4,480

identified as ``native'' fish occurring in tributaries having little

history of supplementation with non-native fish. In this region of

California, Nehlsen et al. (1991) identified coho salmon in the Klamath

River as of special concern, and those in small northern streams as at

moderate risk of extinction. Higgins et al. (1992) identified 10 coho

salmon stocks as of special concern, and 6 as at high risk of

extinction.

While there are limited data to assess population numbers or trends

in this ESU, NMFS has determined that all coho salmon stocks between

Punta Gorda and Cape Blanco are depressed relative to their past

abundance. The main stocks in this region (Rogue River, Klamath River,

and Trinity River) are heavily influenced by hatcheries, apparently

with little natural production in mainstem rivers. The apparent

declines in production in these rivers, in conjunction with heavy

hatchery production, suggest that the natural populations are not self-

sustaining. The status of coho salmon stocks in most small coastal

tributaries is not well known, but these populations are small. NMFS

concludes that coho salmon in this ESU are presently threatened, i.e.,

the ESU is likely to become in danger of extinction in the foreseeable

future if present trends continue. At least within the California

portion of this ESU, NMFS believes that the NCCP conservation planning

process described for the Central California Coast ESU is the best

approach for developing and implementing a successful conservation and

recovery strategy for coho salmon.

3. Oregon coast--NMFS bases its proposed listing of this ESU on the

following types of information: Historical estimates of abundance,

extensive spawner survey records (Cooney and Jacobs 1994), estimates of

ocean harvest rates (PFMC 1993), and previous assessments of stock

status. Based on historical commercial landing statistics and estimated

exploitation rates, Mullen (1981) estimated escapement of coho salmon

in coastal Oregon to be nearly 1 million fish in the early 1900's, with

harvest of nearly 400,000 fish. In a more extensive analysis of similar

data, Lichatowich (1989) concluded that coho salmon abundance in the

same region at that time was about 1.4 million fish. Lichatowich also

concluded that current production potential (based on stock-recruit

models) for coho salmon in Oregon coastal rivers was about 800,000

fish, a reduction of nearly 50 percent in habitat capacity. Recent

spawning escapement estimates indicate an average spawning escapement

of less than 30,000 adults (Jacobs and Cooney 1991, 1992, 1993). While

the methods of estimating total escapement are not comparable between

the historical and recent periods, these numbers suggest that current

abundance of coho salmon on the Oregon coast may be less than 5 percent

of that in the early part of this century.

Kostow et al. (1994) provide estimates of hatchery composition of

naturally-spawning coho salmon in several Oregon coastal rivers,

ranging from 18 to 62 percent. These estimates are for rivers that are

known to have high hatchery influence, so do not represent the average

condition along the Oregon coast. However, these rivers represent a

substantial portion of natural coho salmon production in Oregon, and

indicate that hatchery fish have an extensive presence within the

Oregon coastal ESU.

Based on NMFS's examination of the available information, it is

apparent that spawning escapements for coho salmon populations in the

Oregon coastal ESU have declined substantially during this century.

Average spawner abundance has been relatively constant since the late

1970's, but pre-harvest abundance has declined. Spawner-to-spawner

return ratios (based on peak counts) have been below replacement in 5

of the past 6 years, in spite of reductions in harvest, and average

recruits-per-spawner may also be declining. Of the 43 Oregon coho

salmon stocks north of Cape Blanco identified by Nickelson et al.

(1992), 31 were considered as either depressed or special concern, and

only 6 stocks were considered healthy (the remaining 6 stocks were

listed as ``unknown''). In this same region, Nehlsen et al. (1991),

classified two stocks (Sixes River and New River) to be at high risk of

extinction and 14 stocks at moderate risk of extinction. The heavy

hatchery influence on many rivers within this ESU is a cause for

concern about the sustainability of natural production in these

systems. Also, coastwide abundance of many stocks appears to be very

low this year, and there has been a complete ban of most ocean fishing

for coho salmon. For these reasons, NMFS concludes that coho salmon in

the Oregon coast ESU are presently threatened.

4. Lower Columbia River/southwest Washington coast--A status review

of lower Columbia River coho salmon stocks outside of the Willamette

River Basin has been published by NMFS (Johnson et al. 1991). NMFS

concluded that, historically, at least one ESU of coho salmon probably

occurred in the lower Columbia River Basin, but the agency was unable

to identify any remaining natural populations that warranted protection

under the ESA. The information considered in this earlier status review

is not repeated here. Based on its present status review, NMFS has

determined that the range of the historic ESU probably extended beyond

the lower Columbia River to include coho salmon populations from the

southwest Washington coast and the Willamette River below Willamette

Falls (including the Clackamas River). However, the relationship of

natural populations of coho salmon in these two areas to the historic

ESU is uncertain.

Several recent reports have evaluated the status of coho salmon in

the Columbia River Basin. Nehlsen et al. (1991) classified all coho

salmon stocks above Bonneville Dam (except Hood River) as extinct; Hood

River, Sandy River, and all other lower Columbia tributary stocks were

classified as at high risk of extinction, except the Clackamas River

stock, which was classified as at moderate risk of extinction. The

historic ESU also included populations in portions of the southwest

Washington coast. Nehlsen et al (1991) identified coho salmon stocks in

Willapa Bay as at high risk of extinction. WDF et al. (1993) identified

the Willapa Bay stocks as of unknown status, but of mixed origin and

composite production; they identified all stocks in Grays Harbor

tributaries as healthy, but of mixed origin and composite production.

The largest production of coho salmon along the southwest

Washington coast is in the Chehalis River Basin. Hiss and Knudsen

(1993) estimated that current coho salmon run sizes (before terminal

harvest) in this basin (including the Humptulips River) total about

266,000 adults, of which 135,000 are naturally-produced and 131,000 are

of hatchery origin. They noted that hatchery influence on these runs

has

[[Page 38022]]

increased rapidly since 1970. Coho salmon in the Chehalis River Basin

exhibit two run timings: ``Normal,'' with spawning in early December

throughout the basin, and ``late,'' with spawning in January and

February in lower Chehalis River tributaries. Hiss and Knudsen

suggested that the normal run is composed of a mixture of hatchery and

wild fish, while the late run is virtually all wild fish (but they did

not specify whether ``wild'' implies native fish, or simply natural

production regardless of origin). The two run timings are treated as a

single stock for fishery management purposes, and NMFS has no separate

abundance estimates for the late run. Hiss and Knudsen identified three

streams known to have late-run fish (Bingham Creek, the upper Wynoochee

River, and the Wishkah River), and noted that this run has always been

less abundant than the normal run, but has been particularly small in

recent years. No escapement estimates are available for other streams

in Grays Harbor or Willapa Bay.

Abundance of late-run coho salmon in the Clackamas River has been

measured since 1950 as adult passage at River Mill (1950 to 1957) and

North Fork (1958 to present) Dams, and total run size (early and late

runs) has ranged from 416 (1950) to 4,700 (1968). The late portion of

the run has ranged from 309 (1958) to 3,588 (1968), however it is

unclear whether these are native fish or naturalized hatchery fish.

Cramer and Cramer (1994) concluded that production of the population is

depressed due to a variety of factors. They further concluded that,

under current harvest rates, the population will remain stable, but it

is vulnerable to overharvest. Johnson et al. (1991) briefly reviewed

abundance data for this population and concluded that it had a low risk

of extinction if population parameters remain stable, but recommended

close monitoring of the population.

While the number of naturally-reproducing fish within the lower

Columbia River/southwest Washington coast ESU is fairly large,

evaluating the risk to this ESU is difficult because of the uncertainty

about the relationship of the present natural populations to the

historic ESU. If native coho salmon persist in the Clackamas River or

in southwest Washington, they would represent a small fraction of the

ESU's historical abundance. However, it is not presently possible, with

the limited information available, to identify with certainty native,

naturally-reproducing populations in lower Columbia River tributaries

or along the Washington coast south of Point Grenville. Therefore, NMFS

concludes that a listing is not warranted for the lower Columbia River/

southwest Washington coast ESU at this time. However, there is

sufficient concern regarding the overall health of this ESU (especially

in light of evidence that some native, naturally-reproducing fish may

exist). Therefore, NMFS is adding the lower Columbia River/southwest

Washington coast ESU to the Candidate List until the distribution and

status of the native populations can be resolved.

During the period between this proposed rule and publication of any

final rule, NMFS will conduct a thorough reevaluation of this ESU and

will reconsider the present decision that a listing is not warranted.

In the event that this reevaluation establishes that listing the lower

Columbia River/southwest Washington coast ESU is warranted, NMFS would

issue a proposed rule to list this ESU as threatened or endangered.

5. Olympic Peninsula--Evidence examined by NMFS for this ESU

included trends in terminal run size (i.e., the number of adults

returning to the river mouth), hatchery contribution, trends in ocean

exploitation rate, and trends in the size of fish in terminal landings.

Data on terminal run for stocks in this ESU are collected cooperatively

by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and the

coastal tribes. Spawning escapements to most streams are estimated by

extrapolating from cumulative redd counts on index reaches of the

streams. Because streams within the range of this ESU typically have

highly variable flows during the spawning season, (making it difficult

to conduct accurate counts of spawning fish) WDFW and tribal biologists

believe that redd counts provide the most reliable estimates of total

escapement (PFMC 1990). These natural escapement estimates, combined

with hatchery escapements, form the basis for escapement summaries for

the Olympic Peninsula (WDF et al. 1993, PFMC 1994). However, no attempt

has been made to estimate the number of hatchery-produced fish that

spawn naturally.

No trends were detected in terminal run size, and there is no

evidence for trends in ocean exploitation rates. In the stock complexes

monitored and reported by the PFMC, hatchery returns accounted for 50

percent of the spawning escapement in the period from 1982 through

1992, with the majority of hatchery production contributing to the

Quillayute River summer-run, Quinault River, and Queets River stocks

(PFMC 1994). Of these stocks, the Quinault River and the Salmon River

(tributary of the Queets River) were identified by WDF et al. (1993) as

of mixed origin, while the majority of other stocks were identified as

of native origin. Average recent (1989 to 1993) natural adult

escapement estimates for some of these stocks are (PFMC 1994): Quinault

River--4,700, Queets River--5,400, Hoh River--3,100, Quillayute River--

800 summer run and 7,500 fall run. NMFS found no historical run-size

estimates for these stock complexes to compare with recent abundance,

but there have presumably been substantial declines in coho salmon

production as a result of well-documented habitat degradation since

European settlement.

NMFS also reviewed assessments of coho salmon stocks by Nehlsen et

al. (1991) and WDF et al. (1993). Nehlsen et al. identified only one at

risk coho salmon stock in this ESU: Lake Ozette coho salmon as of

special concern. WDF et al. considered most coho salmon stocks in this

ESU to be healthy or of unknown status, representing a mixture of

native, mixed, and non-native origins and wild or composite (hatchery

and wild) production. Some stocks along the Strait of Juan de Fuca were

identified as depressed. WDF et al. identified eight stocks of native

origin with wild production in this ESU, four of healthy status and

four of unknown status.

NMFS has determined that, relative to the other ESUs, coho salmon

abundance within the Olympic Peninsula ESU is moderate, but stable.

While these stocks have been reduced from historical levels by large-

scale habitat degradation in the lower river basins, there is a

significant portion of coho salmon habitat in several rivers protected

within the boundaries of Olympic National Park. This habitat refuge,

along with the relatively moderate use of hatchery production

(primarily derived from native stocks), appears to have protected these

coho salmon stocks from the serious losses seen in adjacent regions.

While there is continuing cause for concern about habitat destruction

and hatchery practices within this ESU, NMFS believes that there is

substantial native, natural production of coho salmon in the Olympic

Peninsula ESU and that it is not threatened or endangered at this time.

6. Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia--To determine the status of this

ESU, NMFS examined spawning escapement data, long-term trends in

escapement to counting facilities, hatchery contribution rates, ocean

and total exploitation rates, and trends in the size of fish in the

terminal landings. Spawning escapements in the Puget

[[Page 38023]]

Sound portion of this ESU are estimated primarily by spawner surveys

conducted by WDFW in index reaches of selected streams (PFMC 1990).

Only three rivers have long-term (extending back to the 1930's or

1940's) escapement data from which to estimate trends. Long-term trap

counts at Baker River and White River generally showed declining trends

in the 1960's and 1970's, with some evidence of recovery in the 1980s.

The number of adults passed above the hatchery racks on the Samish

River showed neither increasing nor decreasing trends over a 55-year

period. More recent spawner survey data are available for numerous

rivers within the range of this ESU, but no reliable breakdown of

natural and hatchery production is available for these data. Of the

stocks examined for this review, two stocks had significant downward

trends, five had significant upward trends, and the remainder had no

significant trend.

Ocean exploitation rates on wild coho from the Deschutes River,

Snohomish River, and Big Beef Creek declined from the late 1970s

through the mid-1980s and have increased since then, but have remained

in the range of 0.3 to 0.5. Total exploitation rates have shown no

apparent trend, but have fluctuated in the range of 0.6 to 0.9. The

average hatchery contribution rate for stocks monitored and reported by

the PFMC for the period 1981 to 1992 has been 62 percent, with

Nooksack/Samish and South Puget Sound stock complexes managed for, and

clearly dominated by, hatchery production.

Bledsoe et al. (1989) examined changes in run sizes of Puget Sound

salmon since 1896. They failed to find a statistically significant

general decline in run sizes for wild runs of coho salmon in this

period, although they did report a dramatic 85-percent decline of coho

salmon terminal runs in the south sound from 1935 to 1975, which they

attribute at least in part to increasing catch in non-terminal

fisheries. Overall catch of coho salmon in Puget Sound fisheries shows

a substantial decline from 1896 to the early 1940s, but this is largely

attributed to the prohibition of fishing for this species with purse

seines and fish traps starting in 1935. Overall catch within Puget

Sound has increased gradually since that time, but has not returned to

earlier levels, possibly as a result of greater interceptions of coho

salmon in ocean fisheries (Bledsoe et al. 1989). Of further note is the

fact that between 1972 and 1993, the average size of fish in the

terminal landings has undergone a sharp decline from an average of

about 4 kg to about 2 kg. This dramatic decline in average fish size,

which could result from any of several causes, could seriously reduce

the fecundity and fitness of naturally-reproducing fish.

The range of the ESU that includes Puget Sound coho salmon extends

into southern British Columbia, for which NMFS has not received

detailed abundance information. Northcote and Atagi (in preparation)

have reviewed abundance trends for all salmon species in various

regions of British Columbia. Two of their regions include fish that are

part of this ESU. Coho salmon have shown both historical (1800's to

1953-92 average) and recent (1953 to 1992) declines both on Vancouver

Island and along the south-central British Columbia coast (excluding

the Fraser River). In both areas, the historical decline was roughly

two-fold. On Vancouver Island, coho salmon escapements have recently

declined from more than 300,000 in the mid-1950's to about 150,000 at

present. Along the south-central coast, escapement declines in the same

period have been more dramatic, from about 500,000 in the mid-1950's to

less than 100,000 at present. This is a much more severe decline than

the trends documented in the U.S. portion of the ESU. Northcote and

Atagi did not address levels of hatchery production for British

Columbia coho salmon. However, there has been a substantial increase in

coho salmon releases from British Columbia hatcheries since 1975

(Hilborn and Winton 1993).

The stock assessment by Nehlsen et al. (1991) identified three coho

salmon stocks in this region as at high risk of extinction, and one

(Nooksack River) to be possibly extinct. The assessment by WDF et al.

considered stocks in this region to range from healthy to critical in

status, predominantly of mixed origin, and predominantly of composite

production. None of the stocks in this region that they identify as

healthy were of strictly native origin. Two stocks (Deer Creek and

Sumas/Chilliwack) were identified as of native origin with wild

production, but of unknown status.

Systematic assessments of fish habitat conditions have not been

routinely conducted within Washington state. Hence it is difficult to

directly assess general trends in habitat conditions, either throughout

the state or within individual regions or watersheds. However, some

general relationships between land use and habitat changes have been

well documented. Salmon production is strongly tied to freshwater

habitat conditions, which continue to be destroyed or degraded in Puget

Sound.

Human population growth is probably the best overall measure of

disturbance to freshwater salmonid ecosystems, because accompanying

land use changes can adversely affect freshwater and marine habitats in

a variety of ways; examples include reduced infiltration of water into

the soil due to increases in impervious surfaces and loss of forest

habitats, simplification of stream channel structure, changes in flow

patterns, water quality degradation, loss of stream bank cover, loss of

wetland habitats, dissociation of wetlands from stream channels, and

loss of gravel sources due to bank stabilization. These changes affect

all anadromous salmonids, but have particularly severe impacts on coho

salmon. The population of Washington state has grown from about 1

million in 1910 to over 5 million today, and is expected to reach 7

million by 2020, with over 70 percent of this total residing in western

Washington. Population densities have increased from 1.1 people/mi\2\

for the entire state in 1880 to 725, 496, and 232 people/mi\2\ in King,

Kitsap and Snohomish Counties, respectively, in 1990. The counties

encompassing the Snohomish, Stillaguamish, Skagit and Hood Canal

systems have some of the highest growth rates and population densities

statewide, and land use changes in those systems have drastically

altered historic habitat conditions.

The areal extent of estuarine wetlands in Puget Sound is one of the

few habitat characteristics for which there are historical records that

can be compared to results of current surveys. During the last century,

the Snohomish, Stillaguamish, and Skagit Rivers have lost 75 to 90

percent of their delta wetlands, and substantial losses (34 percent of

wetlands) have also occurred in the relatively rural Skokomish River

delta. The loss of freshwater wetlands, which may be even more critical

to juvenile coho salmon, has not been quantified, but is extensive and

continues at present.

Timber harvest and associated road building can adversely affect

fish habitat in a number of ways, including disturbance of forest soils

and increased erosion, more frequent landslides and debris torrents.

Past logging practices have removed riparian vegetation, which

increases stream temperatures and decreases the amount of large, woody

debris in streams, a critical component of coho salmon habitat. The

volume of timber harvest in Washington increased from approximately 3.5

billion board feet per year in the 1950's to about 5.5 billion board

feet per year during much of the 1970's and 1980's. The vast majority

of timberlands in Puget Sound have been logged at least once, and many

areas have experienced

[[Page 38024]]

second or third rotations. Within the Puget Sound area, the acreage of

land managed for forest products has actually declined, as timberlands

are converted to residential and non-forest commercial uses.

In the marine environment, increasing inputs from point and non-

point discharge of pollutants and surface run-off affect water quality

and the status of the marine ecosystem as a whole. Concentrations of

sediment-associated chemical contaminants and disease prevalence in

fish from heavily industrialized sites in Puget Sound are among the

highest in the nation.

NMFS has determined that, relative to the other coho salmon ESUs,

populations in the Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia ESU are abundant, and

with some exceptions, run sizes and natural spawning escapements have

been generally stable. However, artificial propagation of coho salmon

may have had a substantial impact on native, naturally-reproducing coho

salmon populations, to the point that it is difficult to identify self-

sustaining, native stocks within this region. In addition, the

continuing loss of habitat, extremely high harvest rates, and a

potentially severe, recent decline in average size of spawners indicate

that there are substantial risks to the remaining native production in

this ESU.

However, each of these concerns is based as much on professional

judgement as on hard data. Although the magnitude of artificial

propagation in the Puget Sound region ensures that there are ample

opportunities for adverse effects on natural populations, few studies

have been conducted to determine the extent to which such effects

actually occur. Similarly, because virtually no information is

available on size of naturally spawning coho salmon in Puget Sound,

NMFS' evaluation of the decline in adult size is based on data for

terminal, in-river fisheries, which primarily target hatchery fish.

Although harvest rates on natural populations appear to be high,

whether fishing mortality is too high for natural populations to

sustain has not been formally evaluated. Finally, during the course of

this status review, only limited life history and abundance information

was gathered for the substantial portion of this ESU that occurs in

British Columbia.

Because of the general lack of definitive information on the

identified risk factors, and because the number of naturally-

reproducing fish within the ESU is fairly large and apparently stable,

NMFS concludes that a listing is not warranted for the Puget Sound/

Strait of Georgia ESU at this time. However, there is sufficient

concern regarding the overall health of this ESU, and therefore, NMFS

is adding the Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia ESU to the Candidate List.

During the period between this proposed rule and publication of any

final rule, NMFS will conduct a thorough reevaluation of the status of

this ESU and will reconsider the present decision that a listing is not

warranted. In the event that this reevaluation establishes that listing

the Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia ESU is warranted, NMFS would issue a

proposed rule to list this ESU as threatened or endangered.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

Section 2(a) of the ESA states that various species of fish,

wildlife, and plants in the United States have been rendered extinct as

a consequence of economic growth and development untempered by adequate

concern and conservation. Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA and the listing

regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth procedures for listing species.

NMFS must determine, through the regulatory process, if a species is

endangered or threatened based upon any one or a combination of the

following factors: (1) The present or threatened destruction,

modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (2)

overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or education

purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4) inadequacy of existing

regulatory mechanisms; or (5) other natural or human-made factors

affecting its continued existence.

The factors threatening naturally-reproducing coho salmon

populations are numerous and varied. Given the vast geographic scope of

NMFS' status review, it is difficult to determine which factors are

primarily responsible for the decline of a specific ESU. For most of

the coho salmon ESUs proposed for protection under the ESA, the present

condition of the population is a result of long-standing, human-induced

conditions (e.g., harvest, habitat degradation and artificial

propagation) that serve to exacerbate the negative effects of adverse

environmental conditions (e.g., drought, poor ocean conditions). The

following examples provide an overview of the types of activities and

conditions that threaten the conservation of these ESUs over a

significant portion of their ranges.

A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment

of Its Habitat or Range

Logging, agricultural activities, urbanization, stream

channelization, dams, wetland loss, water withdrawals and unscreened

diversions for irrigation, and mining have contributed to the decline

of numerous West Coast populations of coho salmon. Logging activities,

and the associated road networks, often result in soil erosion and

stream sedimentation such that spawning habitat is seriously degraded.

Removal of trees within the riparian zone of coastal streams has

resulted in increased summer water temperatures, eliminated the

potential for trees to fall into streams, and altered the natural

hydrograph. Decreases in large woody material in streams reduces

habitat complexity and contributes to the loss of cover, shade, and

pools; these habitat features are required by juvenile coho salmon.

Livestock grazing can damage streambanks and eliminate streamside

vegetation, thereby preventing riparian species from growing to

maturity and has resulted in shallow, warm streams that are not

suitable for juvenile and adult coho salmon. Agricultural activities

and urbanization often result in pollution from both point and nonpoint

sources, and stream channelization (e.g., for flood control) can alter

the physical and hydrographic properties of streams such that the

quality and amount of habitat available to coho salmon is reduced.

Water withdrawals reduce stream flow and the amount of available

habitat, sometimes during critical drought periods, and can contribute

to high water temperatures.

B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or

Education Purposes

This species has historically been a staple of Pacific Northwest

Indian tribes, and has been targeted in recreational and commercial

fisheries since the early 1800's. Marine harvest of coho salmon in the

range of this status review occurs primarily in nearshore waters off

British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, and California. Recreational

fishing for coho salmon is pursued in numerous streams when adults

return on their fall spawning migration. Due to low escapements and

increased concern for protecting coho and chinook salmon runs, recent

regulations on ocean and river harvest have resulted in the closure or

severe curtailment of fisheries along much of the West Coast.

Unfortunately, the confounding effects of habitat deterioration,

drought, and poor ocean

[[Page 38025]]

conditions on coho salmon survival make it difficult to assess the

degree to which recreational and commercial harvest have contributed to

the overall decline of coho salmon in West Coast rivers. However, it is

clear that more stringent fishing regulations have not resulted in

increased returns of coho salmon. Scientific research and educational

programs are believed to have had little or no impact on coho salmon

populations.

C. Disease or Predation

Relative to effects of fishing, habitat degradation, and hatchery

practices, disease and predation are not believed to be major factors

contributing to the decline of West Coast coho salmon populations.

However, disease and predation may have substantial impacts in local

areas. For example, Bacterial Kidney Disease (BKD), a bacterial

infection that can adversely affect salmon smolts, has been a problem

in most California state fish hatcheries and the CDFG has recently

initiated a treatment protocol to attempt to control BKD outbreaks in

hatchery populations released into the Russian River and Scott Creek

(Central California ESU).

D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

Under the ESA, a determination to propose a species for listing as

threatened or endangered requires considering the biological status of

the species, as well as efforts being made to protect the species.

Typically, regulatory mechanisms established by Federal, state, tribal,

and local governments provide the most effective means to prevent a

species from facing the peril of extinction. Unfortunately, the

continued widespread decline of native, naturally-reproducing coho

salmon in numerous West Coast streams suggests that management plans

and practices followed by the numerous Federal, state, tribal, and

local entities within the range of this status review, have not

provided adequate protection for this species. Of encouraging note is a

Federal interagency cooperative program, the Record of Decision for

Amendments to U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and Bureau of Land Management

(BLM) Planning Documents Within the Range of the Spotted Owl (i.e., the

``Forest Plan'', April 1994), that has recently been implemented to

provide a coordinated management direction for the lands administered

by USFS and BLM. The Forest Plan's region-wide management direction

will amend existing management plans, including Forest Plans, Regional

Guides, Timber Sale Plans, and Resource Management Plans for Federal

lands within the range of the northern spotted owl (which overlaps

considerably with the freshwater range of coho salmon). As part of the

Forest Plan, implementation of an Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS)

on Federal land is expected to reverse the trend of aquatic ecosystem

degradation and contribute toward fish habitat recovery. Coordination

between the Federal land management agencies and NMFS, the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (USFWS) should ensure that the ACS objectives are achieved. In

addition, the adoption of forest practices regulations and fisheries

management plans and policies aimed at protecting and restoring

naturally-reproducing fish populations in Washington, Oregon, and

California emphasizes the widespread concern over declining wild salmon

runs. Because most of these programs are new, it is not possible to

determine if they will be adequate to reverse the declining trend in

coho salmon abundance. Moreover, it is unclear what level of protection

will be afforded to coho salmon habitat on private lands and in non-

forested areas. During the period between this proposed rule and a

final rule, NMFS will continue to evaluate the efficacy of existing

efforts to protect and restore coho salmon populations (see Public

Comments Solicited).

E. Other Natural or Human-made Factors Affecting its Continued

Existence

Long-term trends in rainfall and marine productivity associated

with atmospheric conditions in the North Pacific Ocean may have a major

influence on coho salmon production. The effects of extended drought on

water supplies and water temperatures are a major concern for

California populations of coho salmon. Poor ocean conditions are

believed to have played a prominent role in the decline of coho salmon

populations in Washington, Oregon, and California. Unusually warm ocean

surface temperatures and associated changes in coastal currents and

upwelling, known as El Nino conditions, result in ecosystem alterations

such as reductions in primary and secondary productivity and changes in

prey and predator species distributions. The degree to which adverse

ocean conditions can influence coho salmon production was demonstrated

during the El Nino event of 1982-83, which resulted in a 24- to 27-

percent reduction in fecundity and a 58-percent reduction (based on

pre-return predictions) in survival of adult coho salmon stocks

originating from the Oregon Production Index area (Johnson 1988).

As described previously, the widespread use of artificial

propagation has undoubtedly had a significant impact on the production

of West Coast coho salmon. Potential problems associated with hatchery

programs include genetic impacts on indigenous, naturally-reproducing

populations (see Waples 1991), disease transmission, predation on wild

fish, difficulty in determination of wild run status due to incomplete

marking of hatchery releases, and replacement (rather than

supplementation) of wild stocks through competition and continued

annual introductions of hatchery fish. During the period between this

proposed rule and a final rule, NMFS will continue to evaluate the

relationship between hatchery and native, naturally-reproducing

populations of coho salmon in the proposed ESUs (see Public Comments

Solicited).

Proposed Determination

The ESA defines an endangered species as any species in danger of

extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and a

threatened species as any species likely to become an endangered

species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant

portion of its range. Section 4(b)(1) of the ESA requires that the

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 to protect such species.

Based on results from its coastwide assessment, NMFS has determined

that in the region south of Queen Charlotte Strait, British Columbia,

there are six ESUs of coho salmon that constitute ``species'' under the

ESA. NMFS has determined that three of the six ESUs are currently

threatened, and therefore, proposes to list coho salmon in the central

California coast, southern Oregon/northern California, and Oregon coast

ESUs as threatened. The geographic boundaries (i.e., the watersheds

within which the members of the ESU are typically found) for these ESUs

are described under ``ESU Determinations.'' In all three ESUs, only

naturally-reproducing populations are being proposed for listing as

threatened at this time. However, prior to the final listing

determinations, NMFS will examine and attempt to characterize the

relationship of existing hatchery populations to the ESUs proposed for

listing. This may result in including some existing hatchery

populations in

[[Page 38026]]

some of the ``species'' that may be listed in the final rule. NMFS has

also determined that the Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia ESU and lower

Columbia River/southwest Washington coast ESU do not warrant listing at

this time, but because there is sufficient concern regarding the health

of these ESUs, NMFS is adding them to the Candidate List. NMFS will

conduct a thorough reevaluation of the status of both ESUs and will

reconsider the present decision that listings are not warranted. In the

event that this reevaluation establishes that listing either ESU is

warranted, NMFS will issue a proposed rule to list one or both ESUs as

threatened or endangered.

A Technical Memorandum will be prepared by NMFS and will provide

more detailed information and references concerning the coastwide

status review of coho salmon. The availability of new information may

cause NMFS to re-assess these proposed listings.

Prohibitions and Proposed Protective Measures

Section 9 of the ESA prohibits certain activities that directly or

indirectly affect endangered species. These prohibitions apply to all

individuals, organizations, and agencies subject to U.S. jurisdiction.

Section 4(d) of the ESA allows the promulgation of regulations that

modify or apply any or all of the prohibitions of section 9 to

threatened species. Section 9 also prohibits violations of protective

regulations for threatened species promulgated under section 4(d). As

announced in a recent joint policy with the USFWS (59 FR 34272, July 1,

1994), NMFS will identify, to the extent known at the time of the final

rule, specific activities that will not be considered likely to result

in violation of section 9, as well as activities that will be

considered likely to result in violation. For those activities whose

likelihood of violation is uncertain, a contact will be identified in

the final listing document to assist the public in determining whether

a particular activity would constitute a prohibited act under section

9.

At this time, NMFS proposes to adopt protective measures to

prohibit, with respect to the three ESUs of coho salmon proposed as

threatened herein, ``taking,'' interstate commerce, and the other ESA

prohibitions applicable to endangered species, with the exceptions

provided under section 10 of the ESA. Under the ESA, 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. This adoption

is the normal course followed by the USFWS with respect to threatened

listings (see 50 CFR 17.31(a)). NMFS is extending the provisions of

section 9 and section 10 to these species in order to provide immediate

protections to them. However, prior to the final listing determination,

NMFS will consider adopting specific regulations under section 4(d)

that will apply to one or more ESUs of coho salmon identified as

threatened (see Public Comments Solicited). These regulations,

promulgated pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. 551

et seq., with prior notice and opportunity for comment, may be in lieu

of the Section 9 taking prohibition and Section 10 permit exception.

Available Conservation Measures

Conservation measures provided to species listed as threatened or

endangered under the ESA include prohibitions on taking, recovery

actions, and Federal agency consultation requirements. Recognition

through listing promotes conservation actions by Federal and state

agencies and private groups and individuals.

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 Federal action may affect a

listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency

must enter into consultation with NMFS.

Examples of Federal actions that may be affected by this proposal

include various Federal land management agency activities (e.g.,

actions associated with timber harvest, recreation, mining,

agriculture, and grazing), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Clean Water Act

section 404 permitting activities, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

licenses for nonfederal development and operation of hydropower

projects, and Federal salmon hatcheries.

Based on information presented in this proposed rule, general

conservation measures that could be implemented to help conserve the

species are listed below. This list does not constitute NMFS'

interpretation of a recovery plan under section 4(f) of the ESA.

1. Measures could be taken to promote land management practices

that protect and restore coho salmon habitat. Land management practices

affecting coho salmon habitat include timber harvest, road building,

agriculture, livestock grazing, and urban development.

2. Evaluation of existing commercial and recreational harvest

regulations for ocean and river fisheries could identify any changes

necessary to protect coho salmon populations.

3. Artificial propagation programs could be required to incorporate

practices that minimize impacts upon native populations of coho salmon.

4. Efforts could be made to ensure that existing and proposed dam

facilities are designed and operated in a manner that will not

adversely affect listed populations. For example, NMFS could require

that fish passage facilities at dams effectively pass migrating

juvenile and adult salmon.

5. All water diversions could have adequate headgate and staff

gauge structures installed to control and monitor water usage

accurately. Water rights could be enforced to prevent irrigators from

exceeding the amount of water to which they are legally entitled.

6. All irrigation diversions affecting downstream migrating coho

salmon could be screened. A thorough review of the impact of irrigation

diversions on coho salmon could be conducted.

Should the proposed listings be made final, protective regulations

under the ESA would be put into effect and a recovery program(s) would

be implemented. NMFS recognizes that to be successful, protective

regulations and recovery programs for coho salmon will need to be

developed in the context of conserving aquatic ecosystem health. NMFS

intends that Federal lands and Federal activities bear as much of the

burden as possible for conserving listed populations and the ecosystems

upon which they depend. However, throughout the range of all three ESUs

proposed for listing, coho salmon habitat occurs and can be affected by

activities on state, tribal or private (nonfederal) land. Agricultural,

urban and timber management activities on nonfederal land could and

should be conducted in a manner that avoids adverse effects to coho

salmon aquatic habitat.

NMFS encourages nonfederal landowners to assess the impacts of

their actions on potentially threatened or endangered salmonids. In

particular, NMFS encourages the formulation of watershed partnerships

to promote conservation in accordance with ecosystem principles. These

[[Page 38027]]

partnerships will be successful only if all watershed stakeholders

(i.e., state, tribal, and local governments, landowner representatives,

and Federal and nonfederal biologists) participate and share the goal

of restoring coho salmon to the watersheds. To assist with such

efforts, NMFS, the USFWS and the EPA, with technical assistance from

the Natural Resources Conservation Service, have contracted a study to

provide technical guidance and training to agency staff. This guidance

is intended to produce a technical foundation and informational support

base for fostering development of conservation plans pursuant to

section 10 of the ESA and cooperative agreements with the states of

Washington, Oregon, and California, pursuant to section 6 of the ESA.

Furthermore, NMFS intends to enlist nonfederal jurisdictions, including

tribal and county governments, private organizations and affected

individuals in recovery plan development and implementation.

Critical Habitat

Section 4(a)(3)(A) of the ESA requires that, to the extent prudent

and determinable, critical habitat be designated concurrently with the

listing of a species. However, this section of the ESA specifically

precludes NMFS from designating critical habitat in foreign countries,

e.g., Canada. While NMFS has completed its initial analysis of the

biological status of coho salmon populations from southern British

Columbia to southern California, it has not completed the analysis

necessary for designating critical habitat. Therefore, to avoid

delaying this listing proposal, NMFS will propose critical habitat in a

separate rulemaking. Also, NMFS is nearing completion of a coastwide

status review of steelhead (O. mykiss) populations, a species that has

similar habitat requirements and considerable geographic overlap with

coho salmon. Hence, a delay will allow NMFS to more clearly and

efficiently identify proposed critical habitat for threatened or

endangered ESUs of both species.

Public Comments Solicited

To ensure that the final action resulting from this proposal will

be as accurate and as effective as possible, NMFS is soliciting

comments and suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental

agencies, the scientific community, industry, and any other interested

parties. Public hearings will be held in various locations throughout

the range of the proposed ESUs; details regarding locations, dates, and

times will be published in a forthcoming Federal Register document.

NMFS is requesting information regarding: (1) The existence of

native, naturally-reproducing coho salmon in the proposed ESUs,

especially the lower Columbia River/southwest Washington coast ESU, and

in the Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia ESU; (2) trends in adult size of

native, naturally-reproducing fish, especially in the Puget Sound/

Strait of Georgia ESU; (3) progeny/parent return ratios for naturally-

reproducing fish, both before and after harvest; (4) coho salmon

escapement, particularly escapement data partitioned into natural and

hatchery components; (5) the proportion of naturally-reproducing fish

that were reared as juveniles in a hatchery; (6) the reproductive

success of naturally-reproducing hatchery fish (i.e. hatchery fish

spawning in the wild); (7) straying rates of hatchery fish to other

hatcheries and into natural populations; (8) efforts being made to

protect native, naturally-reproducing populations of coho salmon in

British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, and California; and (9)

suggestions for specific regulations under section 4(d) of the ESA that

could apply to one or more ESUs of coho salmon proposed as threatened.

Suggested regulations should address activities, plans, or guidelines

that, despite their potential to result in the incidental take of

listed fish, will ultimately promote the conservation of threatened

ESUs.

In addition to comments on the proposal concerning the biological

status of the stocks, NMFS is soliciting suggestions and proposals on

conservation measures that might best achieve the purposes of the ESA

relating to recovering the health of coho salmon populations and the

ecosystems upon which they depend. These conservation measures include:

(1) The best approach to integrate federal efforts with state and local

efforts on habitat protection and restoration, harvest management

regimes and hatchery production programs; (2) the best method to

integrate and encourage private efforts at habitat protection and

restoration, and the most effective role of NMFS and other federal

agencies for promoting private conservation efforts for purposes of

achieving the goals of the ESA; (3) the role of successful local

watershed protection programs in the larger conservation effort, and

the best mechanisms to encourage these efforts; (4) the most

appropriate mechanisms for integrating existing harvest management

regimes with the needs of coho salmon populations proposed for listing;

and, (5) the most effective mechanisms for instituting necessary

reforms in the hatchery production practices to support the recovery

effort while achieving other related objectives of the existing

programs.

NMFS also is requesting quantitative evaluations describing the

quality and extent of freshwater and marine habitats for juvenile and

adult coho salmon as well as information on areas that may qualify as

critical habitat in Washington, Oregon, and California for the proposed

ESUs. Areas that include the physical and biological features essential

to the recovery of the species should be identified. Areas outside the

present range should also be identified if such areas are essential to

the recovery of the species. Essential features should include, but are

not limited to: (1) Space for individual and population growth, and for

normal behavior; (2) food, water, air, light, minerals, or other

nutritional or physiological requirements; (3) cover or shelter; (4)

sites for reproduction and rearing of offspring; and (5) habitats that

are protected from disturbance or are representative of the historic

geographical and ecological distributions of the species.

For areas potentially qualifying as critical habitat, NMFS is

requesting information describing: (1) The activities that affect the

area or could be affected by the designation, and (2) the economic

costs and benefits of additional requirements of management measures

likely to result from the designation.

The economic cost to be considered in the critical habitat

designation under the ESA is the probable economic impact ``of the

[critical habitat] designation upon proposed or ongoing activities''

(50 CFR 424.19). NMFS must consider the incremental costs specifically

resulting from a critical habitat designation that are above the

economic effects attributable to listing the species. Economic effects

attributable to listing include actions resulting from section 7

consultations under the ESA to avoid jeopardy to the species and from

the taking prohibitions under section 9 of the ESA. Comments concerning

economic impacts should distinguish the costs of listing from the

incremental costs that can be directly attributed to the designation of

specific areas as critical habitat.

NMFS will review all public comments and any additional information

regarding the status of the coho salmon ESUs described herein and, as

required under the ESA, intends to complete a final rule within 1 year

of this proposed rule. The availability of new information may cause

NMFS to re-assess the status of any coho salmon ESU, including ESUs not

proposed for

[[Page 38028]]

listing at this time. In particular, NMFS will conduct a thorough

reevaluation of the status of the Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia and

lower Columbia River/southwest Washington coast ESUs before the final

listing determination. Although NMFS has concluded that information

available at the present time is not sufficient to demonstrate that a

listing is warranted for these ESUs, there is concern over the health

of natural populations.

Classification

The 1982 amendments to the ESA, in section 4(b)(1)(A), restrict the

information that may be considered when assessing species for listing.

Based on this limitation of criteria for a listing decision and the

opinion in Pacific Legal Foundation v. Andrus, 675 F. 2d 825 (6th Cir.,

1981), NMFS has categorically excluded all ESA listing actions from

environmental assessment requirements of the National Environmental

Policy Act under NOAA Administrative Order 216-6.

This proposed rule is exempt from review under E.O. 12866.

References

Bartley, D.M. 1987. The Genetic Structure of Chinook and Coho

Salmon Populations in California, with a Note on the Genetic

Variability in Sturgeon (Acipenseridae). Ph.D. Dissertation, Univ.

California, Davis. 204 p.

Bledsoe, L.J., D.A. Somerton, and C.M. Lynde. 1989. The Puget

Sound Runs of Salmon: An Examination of the Changes in Run Size

since 1896. In C.D. Levings, L.B. Holtby, and M.A. Henderson

(editors), Proceedings of the National Workshop on Effects of

Habitat Alteration on Salmonid Stocks. Can. Spec. Publ. Fish. Aquat.

Sci. 105:50-61.

Brown, L.R., and P.B. Moyle. 1991. Status of Coho Salmon in

California. Report to the National Marine Fisheries Service,

Southwest Region, Terminal Island. 114 p.

Brown, L.R., P.B. Moyle, and R.M. Yoshiyama. 1994. Historical

Decline and Current Status of Coho Salmon in California. N. Am. J.

Fish. Manage. 14:237-261.

Bryant, G.J. 1994. Status Review of Coho Salmon Populations in

Scott and Waddell Creeks, Santa Cruz County, CA. National Marine

Fisheries Service, Southwest Region, Santa Rosa. 102 p.

Booth, D.B. 1991. Urbanization and the Natural Drainage System--

Impacts, Solutions, and Prognoses. Northwest Environ. J. 7:93-118.

California Advisory Committee on Salmon and Steelhead Trout.

1988. Restoring the Balance. Annual Report 124-J. 84 p.

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 1994. Petition to

the Board of Forestry to List Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) as

a Sensitive Species. California Department of Fish and Game,

Sacramento, CA, 35 p. (Available from California Board of Forestry,

1416 Ninth St., Sacramento, CA 95814.)

California Resources Agency. 1995. Letter to Hilda Diaz-Soltero,

NMFS, from John Amodio, Assistant Secretary, dated June 21, 1995,

regarding conservation and recovery of coho through the NCCP

conservation program. (Available from National Marine Fisheries

Service, Southwest Region, 501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long

Beach, CA 90802.

Chapman, D.W. 1962. Aggressive Behavior in Juvenile Coho Salmon

as a Cause of Emigration. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 19:1047-1080.

Columbia River Coordinated Information System (CIS). 1992. Stock

Summary Reports for Columbia River Anadromous Salmonids, 5 volumes.

U.S. Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Division

of Fish and Wildlife, Portland, OR. DOE/BP-94402.

Cooney, C.X., and S.E. Jacobs. 1994. Oregon Coastal Salmon

Spawning Surveys, 1992. Fish Division Information Reports 94-2.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Portland, OR. 103 p.

Cramer, D.P., and S.P. Cramer. 1994. Status and Population

Dynamics of Coho Salmon in the Clackamas River. Tech. Rep., Portland

General Electric Co., 105 p. (Available from Portland General

Electric Co., 33831 S.E. Faraday Rd., Estacada, OR. 97023.)

Cramer, S.P. 1994. Status of Oregon's Coastal Coho and Measures

for Population Rebuilding. Final Report, May 1994. Submitted to

National Marine Fisheries Service by S.P. Cramer and Associates,

Gresham, OR, 142 p. (Available from Environmental and Technical

Services Division, Natl. Marine Fish. Serv., 525 NE Oregon St.,

Suite 500, Portland, OR. 97232-2737.)

Cramer, S.P., T.D. Satterthwaite, R.B. Boyce, and B.P.

McPherson. 1985. Lost Creek Dam Fisheries Evaluation Phase I

Completion Report. Volume I: Impacts of Lost Creek Dam on the

Biology of Anadromous Salmonids in the Rogue River. Submitted to

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Contract DACW57-77-C-0027, 271 p.

(Available from Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, P.O. Box 59,

Portland, OR. 97207.)

Currens, K.P., and D. Farnsworth. 1993. Mitochondrial DNA

Variation in Oregon Coho Salmon. Report to Oregon Department of Fish

and Wildlife, 16 p. (Available from Oregon Department of Fish and

Wildlife, P.O. Box 59, Portland, OR 97207.)

Flagg, T.A., F.W. Waknitz, D.J. Maynard, G.B. Milner, and C.V.

Mahnken. In press. Impact of Hatcheries on Native Coho Salmon

Populations in the Lower Columbia River. In H. Shamm and B. Piper

(editors) Proceedings of the American Fisheries Society Symposium on

the Uses and Effects of Cultured Fishes in Aquatic Ecosystems,

Albuquerque, New Mexico. (Available from National Marine Fisheries

Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, 2725 Montlake Blvd. E.,

Seattle, WA 98112.)

Fleming, I.A., and M.R. Gross. 1989. Evolution of Adult Female

Life History and Morphology in a Pacific Salmon (coho: Oncorhynchus

kisutch). Evolution 43:141-157.

Forbes, S., K. Knudsen, and F. Allendorf. 1993. Genetic

Variation in DNA of Coho Salmon from the Lower Columbia River. Final

Report to the U.S. Department of Energy, Bonneville Power

Administration, Division of Fish and Wildlife, Contract DE-BI79-92BP

30198, 25 p. (Available from Bonneville Power Administration, Public

Information Office--ALP-22, P.O. Box 3621, Portland, OR. 97208.)

Gall, G.A.E. 1991. Allele Frequencies of Selected Stocks of

California, Coastal Oregon, and Columbia River Coho Salmon. Data

Submitted to ESA Administrative Record for Coho Salmon, 16 January

1991, 59 p. (Available from Environmental and Technical Services

Division, Natl. Marine Fish. Serv., 525 NE Oregon St., Suite 500,

Portland, OR. 97232-2737.)

Goodman, M.L. 1990. Preserving the Genetic Diversity of Salmonid

Stocks: A Call for Federal Regulation of Hatchery Programs. Environ.

Law 120:111-166.

Hard, J.J., R.P. Jones, M.R. Delarm, and R.S. Waples. 1992.

Pacific Salmon and Artificial Propagation under the Endangered

Species Act. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS F/NWFSC-2, 56

p.

Higgins, P., S. Dobush, and D. Fuller. 1992. Factors in Northern

California Threatening Stocks with Extinction. Humboldt Chapter of

the American Fisheries Society, Arcata, CA. 24 p.

Hilborn, R., and J. Winton. 1993. Learning to Enhance Salmon

Production: Lessons from the Salmonid Enhancement Program. Can. J.

Fish. Aquat. Sci. 50:2043-2056.

Hiss, J.M., and E.E. Knudsen. 1993. Chehalis River Basin Fishery

Resources: Status, Trends, and Restoration. U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Western Washington Fishery Resource Office, 128 p.

(Available from USFWS, Western Washington Fishery Resource Office,

2625 Parkmont Lane, Bldg. A, Olympia, WA 98502-5751.)

Hjort, R.C., and C.B. Schreck. 1982. Phenotypic Differences

among Stocks of Hatchery and Wild Coho Salmon, Oncorhynchus kisutch,

in Oregon, Washington, and California. Fish. Bull., U.S. 80:105-119.

Jacobs, S.E., and C.X. Cooney. 1991. Improvement of Methods Used

to Estimate the Spawning Escapement of Oregon Coastal Natural Coho

Salmon. Fish Division Progress Reports 1991, Oregon Department of

Fish and Wildlife, Portland, OR, 24 p.

Jacobs, S.E., and C.X. Cooney. 1992. Improvement of Methods Used

to Estimate the Spawning Escapement of Oregon Coastal Natural Coho

Salmon. Fish Division Progress Reports 1992, Oregon Department of

Fish and Wildlife, Portland, OR, 23 p.

Jacobs, S.E., and C.X. Cooney. 1993. Improvement of Methods Used

to Estimate the Spawning Escapement of Oregon Coastal Natural Coho

Salmon. Fish Division Progress Reports 1993, Oregon Department of

Fish and Wildlife, Portland, OR, 28 p.

Johnson, O.W., T.A. Flagg, D.J. Maynard, G.B. Milner, and F.W.

Waknitz. 1991. Status Review for Lower Columbia River Coho Salmon.

U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS F/NWC-202, 94 p.

Johnson, S.L. 1988. The Effects of the 1983 El Nino on Oregon's

Coho (Oncorhynchus

[[Page 38029]]

kisutch) and Chinook (O. tshawytscha) Salmon. Fish. Res. 6:105-123.

Kostow, K., and 13 coauthors. 1994. The Natural Production

Program 1994 Biennial Report on the Status of Wild Fish in Oregon

and the Implementation of Fish Conservation Policies. Oregon

Department of Fish and Wildlife, Portland, OR. 165 p.

Lichatowich, J.A. 1989. Habitat Alteration and Changes in

Abundance of Coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and Chinook (O.

tshawytscha) Salmon in Oregon's Coastal Streams. Can. Spec. Publ.

Fish. Aquat. Sci. 105:92-99.

Maahs, M., and J. Gilleard. 1994. Anadromous Salmonid Resources

of Mendocino Coastal and Inland Rivers 1990-91 through 1991-92: An

Evaluation of Rehabilitation Efforts Based on Carcass Recovery and

Spawning Activity. Draft Final Report to California Department of

Fish and Game, Fisheries Division, Fisheries Restoration Program,

Contract FG-9364. 66 p.

Mullen, R.E. 1981. Estimates of the Historical Abundance of Coho

Salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch (Walbaum), in Oregon Coastal Streams and

in the Oregon Production Index Area. Oregon Department of Fish and

Wildlife Population Dynamics and Statistical Services Section,

Corvallis, OR. 9 p.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Northwest Fisheries

Science Center, Coastal Zone and Estuarine Studies Division. 1994.

Memo to ESA Administrative Record for Coastal Coho Salmon RE:

Preliminary Conclusions of the Northwest Fisheries Science Center's

Review of a Petition to list Oregon Populations of Coho Salmon under

the U.S. Endangered Species Act, 5 July 1994, 17 p. (Available from

Environmental and Technical Services Division, Natl. Marine Fish.

Serv., 525 NE Oregon St., Suite 500, Portland, OR 97232-2737.)

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Northwest Fisheries

Science Center, Coastal Zone and Estuarine Studies Division. 1994.

Memo to ESA Administrative Record for Coastal Coho Salmon RE:

Conclusions of the Northwest Fisheries Science Center's Review of

the Status of Coho Salmon from California, Oregon, and Washington

under the U.S. Endangered Species Act, 2 September 1994, 41 p.

(Available from Environmental and Technical Services Division, Natl.

Marine Fish. Serv., 525 NE Oregon St., Suite 500, Portland, OR

97232-2737.)

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Northwest Fisheries

Science Center, Coastal Zone and Estuarine Studies Division. 1994.

Memo to ESA Administrative Record for Coastal Coho Salmon RE: Puget

Sound Coho Salmon, 22 February 1995, 3 p. (Available from

Environmental and Technical Services Division, Natl. Marine Fish.

Serv., 525 NE Oregon St., Suite 500, Portland, OR 97232-2737.)

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Northwest Region.

1995. Memo to R. Schmitten from M. Schiewe RE: Puget Sound Coho

Salmon--Recommendation not to propose to list as threatened under

the Endangered Species Act, 20 March 1995, 14 p. (Available from

Environmental and Technical Services Division, Natl. Marine Fish.

Serv., 525 NE Oregon St., Suite 500, Portland, OR 97232-2737.)

Nehlsen, W., J.E. Williams, and J.A. Lichatowich. 1991. Pacific

Salmon at the Crossroads: Stocks at Risk from California, Oregon,

Idaho, and Washington. Fisheries (Am. Fish. Soc.) 16(2):4-21.

Nickelson, T.E., J.W. Nicholas, A.M. McGie, R.B. Lindsay, D.L.

Bottom, R.J. Kaiser, and S.E. Jacobs. 1992. Status of Anadromous

Salmonids in Oregon Coastal Basins. Research and Development Section

and Ocean Salmon Management, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife,

83 p. (Available from Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, P.O.

Box 59, Portland, OR 97207.)

Northcote, T.C., and D.Y. Atagi. In Preparation. Pacific Salmon

Abundance Trends in the Fraser River Watershed Compared with other

British Columbia Systems. In D.J. Stouder, P.A. Bisson, and R.J.

Naiman (editors), Pacific Salmon and their Ecosystems, Status and

Future Options. Chapman and Hall, Inc., New York, NY.

Olin, P.G. 1984. Genetic Variability in Hatchery and Wild

Populations of Coho Salmon, Oncorhynchus kisutch, in Oregon. M.S.

Thesis, Univ. California, Davis. 73 p.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 1992. Oregon

Salmon and Steelhead Catch Data, 1979-91. Fish Division, Oregon

Department of Fish and Wildlife, 22 p. (Available from Oregon

Department of Fish and Wildlife, P.O. Box 59, Portland, OR 97207.)

ODFW. 1993. Oregon Salmon and Steelhead Catch Data, 1980-92.

Fish Division, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 21 p.

(Available from Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, P.O. Box 59,

Portland, OR 97207.)

Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC). 1990. Scientific and

Statistical Committee (SSC) Review of Washington Coastal and Puget

Sound Coho Salmon Escapement Estimation Methodologies: Summary and

Recommendations. SSC Supplemental Report B.5-2 from the PFMC Meeting

March 1990.

PFMC. 1993. Preseason Report I: Stock Abundance Analysis for

1993 Ocean Salmon Fisheries. Pacific Fishery Management Council,

Portland, OR.

PFMC. 1994. Review of 1993 Ocean Salmon Fisheries. Pacific

Fishery Management Council, Portland, OR, February 1994.

Reisenbichler, R.R., and S.R. Phelps. 1987. Genetic Variation in

Chinook, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, and Coho, O. kisutch, Salmon from

the North Coast of Washington. Fish. Bull., U.S. 85(4):681-701.

Ricker, W.E. 1981. Changes in Average Size and Average Age of

Pacific Salmon. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 38:1636-1656.

Sandercock, F.K. 1991. Life History of Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus

kisutch). In C. Groot and L. Margolis (editors), Pacific Salmon Life

Histories, p. 396-445. Univ. British Columbia Press, Vancouver.

Solazzi, M.F. 1986. Electrophoretic Stock Characterization of

Coho Salmon Populations in Oregon and Washington, and Coastal

Chinook Salmon Populations in Oregon. Oregon Dep. Fish and Wildlife,

Info. Rep. 86-5:1-16.

Solazzi, M.F., T.E. Nickelson, and S.L. Johnson. 1990. An

Evaluation of the Use of Coho Salmon Presmolts to Supplement Wild

Production in Oregon Coastal Streams. Oregon Department of Fish and

Wildlife, Fisheries Research Report 10:1-22.

Thompson, G.G. 1991. Determining Minimum Viable Populations

under the Endangered Species Act. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech.

Memo. NMFS F/NWC-198, 78 p.

van den Berghe, E.P., and M.R. Gross. 1984. Female Size and Nest

Depth in Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Can. J. Fish. Aquat.

Sci. 412:204-206.

Waples, R.S. 1991. Pacific Salmon, Oncorhynchus Spp., and the

Definition of ``Species'' under the Endangered Species Act. Mar.

Fish. Rev. 53(3):11-22.

Washington Department of Fisheries (WDF). 1994. Historical

Commercial Catch and Effort Database, In-river Harvest Data for

Selected Washington Rivers, 1972-93. (Available from Washington

Department of Fish and Wildlife, 600 Capitol Way N., Olympia, WA

98501-1091.)

WDF, Washington Department of Wildlife, and Western Washington

Treaty Indian Tribes. 1993. 1992 Washington State Salmon and

Steelhead Stock Inventory. Olympia, WA. 212 p.

Wehrhahn, C.F., and R. Powell. 1987. Electrophoretic Variation,

Regional Differences, and Gene Flow in the Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus

kisutch) of Southern British Columbia. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 44:

822-831.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 227

Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Marine

mammals, Transportation.

Dated: July 19, 1995.

Rolland A. Schmitten,

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries

Service.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 227 is

proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 227--THREATENED FISH AND WILDLIFE

1. The authority citation for part 227 continues to read as

follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.

2. In Sec. 227.4, paragraphs (j), (k), and (l) are added to read as

follows:

Sec. 227.4 Enumeration of threatened species.

* * * * *

(j) Central California coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch).

(k) Southern Oregon/northern California coast coho salmon

(Oncorhynchus kisutch).

(l) Oregon coast coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch).

3. Section 227.21 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 227.21 Threatened salmon.

(a) Prohibitions. The prohibitions of section 9 of the Act (16

U.S.C. 1538)

[[Page 38030]]

relating to endangered species apply to threatened species of salmon

listed in Sec. 227.4 (f), (g), (j), (k), and (l), except as provided in

paragraph (b) of this section.

(b) Exceptions. The exceptions of section 10 of the Act (16 U.S.C.

1539) and other exceptions under the Act relating to endangered

species, including regulations implementing such exceptions, also apply

to the threatened species of salmon listed in Sec. 227.4 (f), (g), (j),

(k), and (l). This section supersedes other restrictions on the

applicability of parts 217 and 222 of this chapter, including, but not

limited to, the restrictions specified in Secs. 217.2 and 222.22(a) of

this chapter with respect to the species identified in Sec. 227.21(a).

[FR Doc. 95-18146 Filed 7-19-95; 4:00 pm]

BILLING CODE 3510-22-P