Endangered and Threatened Species; Threatened Status for Central California Coast Coho Salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU)

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 227

[Docket No. 950407093-6298-03; I.D. 012595A]

Endangered and Threatened Species; Threatened Status for Central

California Coast Coho Salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU)

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

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS is issuing a final determination that the Central

California coast coho salmon ESU (Oncorhynchus kisutch) is a

``species'' under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended,

and that it will be listed as a threatened species.

In the 1940s, estimated abundance of coho salmon in this ESU ranged

from 50,000 to 125,000 native coho salmon. Today, it is estimated that

there are probably less than 6,000 naturally-reproducing coho salmon.

The threats to naturally-reproducing coho salmon are numerous and

varied. In the Central California coast ESU, the present depressed

condition is the result of several human caused factors (e.g., habitat

degradation, harvest, water diversions, and artificial propagation)

that exacerbate the adverse effects of natural environmental

variability from drought and poor ocean conditions. Existing regulatory

mechanisms are either not adequate or not being adequately implemented

to provide for the conservation of the Central California coast coho

ESU.

The taking of this species is prohibited, pursuant to section 4(d)

and section 9 of the ESA. Certain exceptions to this taking prohibition

pursuant to section 10 are provided. The taking prohibitions go into

effect as provided in Sec. 227.21.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 2, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Craig Wingert, NMFS, Southwest Region, Protected Species

Management Division, 501 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA

90802-4213, telephone (310/980-4021); or Marta Nammack, NMFS, Office of

Protected Resources, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910,

telephone (301/713-1401).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Craig Wingert, telephone (310/980-4021), or Matra Nammack, telephone

(301/713-1401).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) is an anadromous salmonid

species that was historically distributed throughout the North Pacific

Ocean from central California to Point Hope, AK, through the Aleutian

Islands, and from the Anadyr River, Russia, south to Hokkaido, Japan.

Historically, this species probably inhabited most coastal streams in

Washington, Oregon, and northern and central California. Some

populations, now considered extinct, and 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 on the west coast of North America generally

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

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

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

vary between and within coastal and Columbia River Basin populations.

Depending on river temperatures, eggs incubate in ``redds'' (gravel

nests excavated by spawning females) for 1.5 to 4 months before

hatching as ``alevins'' (a larval life stage dependent on food stored

in a yolk sac). Following yolk sac absorption, alevins emerge from the

gravel as young juveniles, or ``fry,'' and begin actively feeding.

Juveniles rear in fresh water for up to 15 months, then migrate to the

ocean as ``smolts'' in the spring. Coho salmon typically spend two

growing seasons in the ocean before returning to their natal streams 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 eliminated in nearly all

Columbia River tributaries and to be in decline in numerous coastal

streams in Washington, Oregon, and California. Coho in at least 33

stream/river systems 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

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 describing how it would apply

the ESA definitin of a ``species'' to anandronous salmonid species (56

FR 58612, November 20, 1991). More recently, NMFS and the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (FWS) published a joint policy, consistent with NMFS'

policy, regarding the definition of distinct population segments (61 FR

4722, February 7, 1996). The earlier policy is more detailed and

applies specifically to Pacific salmonids and, therefore, was used for

this determination. This policy indicates that one or more naturally

reproducing salmonid populations will be considered distinct, and hence

species under the ESA, if they represent an ESU of the biological

species. To be considered an ESU, a population must satisfy two

criteria: (1) It must be reproductively isolated from other population

units of the same species, and (2) it must represent an important

component in the evolutionary legacy of the biological species. The

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

have been strong enough to permit evolutionarily important differences

to occur in different population units. The second criterion is met if

the population contributes substantially to the ecological/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 Spcies Act: Application to Pacific

Salmon.'' NMFS' proposed listing determination and rule (60 FR 38011,

July 25, 1995) for west coast coho salmon and the west coast coho

salmon status review (Weitkamp et al., 1995) describe the genetic,

ecological, and life history characteristics, as well as human-caused

genetic changes, that NMFS assessed to determine the number and

geographic extent of coho salmon ESUs.

Previous Federal ESA Actions Related to Coho Salmon Listing

The history of petitions received regarding coho salmon is

summarized in the proposed rule published on July 25, 1995 (60 FR

38011). The most comprehensive petition received was from the Pacific

Rivers Council and 22 co-petitioners on October 20, 1993. In response

to that petition, NMFS assessed the best available scientific and

commercial data, including technical information from Pacific Salmon

[[Page 56139]]

Biological and Technical Committees (PSBTCs) in Washington, Oregon, and

California. The PSBTCs consisted of scientists (from Federal, state,

and local resource agencies, Indian tribes, industries, professional

societies, and public interest groups) with technical expertise

relevant to coho salmon.

NMFS established a Biological Review Team (BRT), comprised of staff

from its Northwest Fisheries Science Center and Southwest Regional

Office, and completed a coastwide status review for coho salmon (NOAA

Technical Memorandum, September 1995, entitled: ``Status Review of Coho

Salmon from Washington, Oregon, and California'' [Weitkamp et al.,

1995]).

Based on the results of the BRT report, and after consideration of

other information and a review of existing conservation measures, NMFS

published a proposed listing determination (60 FR 38011, July 25, 1995)

which identified six ESUs of coho salmon ranging from southern British

Columbia to central California. The Olympic Peninsula ESU was found to

not warrant listing; the Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia ESU and the

lower Columbia River/southwest Washington coast ESU were identified as

candidates for listing; and the Oregon Coast ESU, Southern Oregon/

Northern California ESU, and Central California coast ESU were proposed

for listing as threatened species.

Pursuant to section 4(b)(6)(B)(i), NMFS may make a finding ``that

there is a substantial disagreement regarding the sufficiency or

accuracy of the available data relevant to the determination'' and, on

that basis, may extend the 1-year period for up to 6 months to solicit

and analyze additional data. NMFS has concluded that a 6-month

extension is warranted for the Oregon Coast and Southern Oregon/

Northern California ESUs. For NMFS' determination on the 6-month

extension, see the Notices section of this Federal Register.

Summary of Comments Regarding the Central California Coast Coho

ESUs

NMFS held two public hearings in California (Rohnert Park and

Eureka) to solicit comments on the proposed listing determination for

west coast coho salmon. Forty-seven individuals presented testimony at

the hearings. During the 90-day public comment period, NMFS received 17

written comments on the proposed rule from state, Federal, and local

government agencies, Indian tribes, non-government organizations, the

scientific community, and other individuals. Of the comments received,

35 supported the listing and 5 opposed the listing. The majority of

comments (44) addressed factors for the decline of coho salmon. Twenty-

two commenters stated that existing regulatory mechanisms, including

enforcement, were inadequate to protect coho salmon and their habitats.

A summary of major comments received during the public comment period

and public hearings, grouped by major issue categories, is presented

below.

Issue 1: Sufficiency of Scientific Information

Many commenters urged NMFS to use the best available scientific

information in reaching a final determination regarding the risk of

extinction faced by coho ESUs in California. All but one commenter

supported the scientific conclusions reached by NMFS. This commenter

specifically questioned the data used to determine the risk of

extinction of coho salmon in the Russian River Basin.

NMFS is required under section 4(b) of the ESA to use only the best

scientific and commercial data available in making a determination.

However, the available information regarding the historic and present

abundance of coho salmon throughout the Central California coast coho

salmon ESU is limited. NMFS' 1995 west coast salmon status review

(Weitkamp et al., 1995), together with recent information collected by

NMFS scientists and information provided to NMFS by other sources since

the proposed listing determination was published, represent the best

scientific information presently available for coho salmon populations

in the Central California coast ESU. This information indicates that

coho salmon in the southern portion of the ESU (south of San Francisco

Bay) are severely depressed, though most of the coho production within

this ESU originated from coastal watersheds north of San Francisco Bay

(CDFG, 1991). Nehlsen et al. (1991) provided no information on

individual coho salmon in central California but identified coho in

streams and rivers north of San Francisco as being at moderate risk of

extinction and those south of San Francisco as being at high risk of

extinction. Higgins et al. (1992) considered only drainages from the

Russian River north and identified four coho salmon stocks within the

central California coast ESU as being at risk (three of special concern

and one, the Gualala River, as being at a high risk of extinction). The

most comprehensive review of coho salmon in California was conducted by

Brown and Moyle (1991) and summarized by Brown et al. (1994). They

reported that coho in California have declined or disappeared from all

streams in which they were historically recorded.

Issue 2: Status of the Central California Coast Coho ESU

Forty comments received by NMFS addressed the status of California

coho salmon populations. The vast majority of the comments (91 percent)

stated that the Central California coast ESU should be listed as

endangered based on the scientific information available and presented

in the state and federal status reviews. The remaining commenters

stated coho salmon in central California should be listed as

threatened, primarily based on conservation efforts currently being

implemented.

In determining the status of the Central California coast coho ESU

under the ESA, NMFS considers both the scientific information on the

status and risk faced by the ESU. In assessing the risk of extinction

faced by a species, NMFS considers ``those efforts, if any, being made

by any State or foreign nation, or any political subdivision of a State

or foreign nation, to protect such species'' (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(1)(A);

50 CFR 424.11(f)).

Based on a review of the status of coho south of San Francisco

(Anderson, 1995), the California Fish and Game Commission decided to

list coho south of San Francisco as endangered under the California ESA

(CESA), effective January 1, 1996. The California Department of

Forestry (CDF) and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG)

have implemented protective measures for coho salmon stocks and their

habitats south of San Francisco Bay which represent an improvement over

the existing forest rules and practices.

NMFS thinks that the State's efforts to protect coho south of San

Francisco may prove to be effective in mitigating adverse impacts, but

it is premature to conclude that they reduce the risk facing the

species to such an extent that the determination would be different. In

the remainder of the ESU, NMFS has collected information indicating

that coho are present in streams in which they were not previously

reported historically and from which they had been reported to have

been extirpated (Adams, 1996; August 27, 1996, Memorandum A. MacCall to

H. Diaz-Soltero). In addition, a number of water-shed groups are

involved in restoration projects within this ESU, and steps have been

taken by the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) and NMFS to

curtail the adverse effects of ocean fishing. Therefore, NMFS has

determined that, even though the

[[Page 56140]]

absolute numbers of fish in this ESU are low, the ESU is not in

imminent danger of extinction, and it is appropriately designated as

threatened.

Issue 3: Factors Contributing to the Decline of Coho Salmon in

California

Forty-four comments addressed factors regarding the decline of coho

salmon and the damage or loss of their habitats. Thirty-eight

individuals commented on the degraded, blocked, fragmented, and

generally poor quality of coho salmon habitat; 24 cited the adverse

effects of logging, and 11 discussed adverse effects of agricultural

activities on coho salmon and their habitats; 21 commented that poor

water quality conditions, primarily excessive warm water temperatures,

were outside the preferred range for salmonids during the summer; 19

indicated that point and non-point source pollution including

sedimentation, municipal and industrial effluent, and herbicides/

pesticides, have contributed to the decline of the species; 8 commented

that hatchery practices, primarily excessive out-of-basin plantings,

disease, and competition with natural fish for food and space, have

contributed to the decline of the species; 7 commented that excessive

fishing had occurred; 6 commented that past and present mining

activities have contributed to the decline of the species; 6 commented

that urbanization activities have contributed to the decline of the

species; 5 commented that there has been increased predation on coho

salmon from pinniped, fish, and avian predators; and two commented on

the effects that drought (e.g., 1976-77 and 1986-92) has had on coho

salmon populations in California.

NMFS agrees with the commenters that many factors, past and

present, have contributed to the decline of coho salmon. New

information provided by commenters and responses to this information

have been incorporated in the Summary of Factors Affecting Coho Salmon.

Issue 4: Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

Two commenters acknowledged that past timber and mining activities

contributed to the decline of coho salmon but maintained that existing

regulatory mechanisms (e.g., the California Forest Practices Act

(CFPA), Clean Water Act (CWA), mining regulations) and review processes

are sufficient for the protection of coho salmon and their habitats.

Twenty-two commented that existing regulatory mechanisms (e.g., CFPA

and CWA), including enforcement, and inadequate to protect coho salmon

and their habitats.

Several commenters stated that current logging practices have

dramatically improved over those of the past, decreasing the impact of

present-day logging on habitat. Present-day logging practices have

improved over those of the past; however, timber harvest is still a

major land use in the Central California coast ESU, and fish habitat is

still recovering from past logging practices. In addition, the

incremental impacts of present-day land management practices, when

added to impacts of past land management practices and other risk

factors, continue to pose a serious threat to Central California coast

coho.

Although several commenters describe the CFPA as being capable of

protecting coho salmon and their ecosystems, little evidence has been

provided to support these claims. While the CFPA attempts to achieve

fish habitat protection by establishing ``Water and Lake Protection

Zones,'' there is no substantive body of evidence to demonstrate that

the level of protection is sufficient to conserve the anadromous fish

habitat and ecosystems upon which coho salmon in the Central California

coast coho salmon ESU depend. Neither has the CWA been used to its full

potential. Seventeen water bodies in central and northern California

have been designated as impaired under section 303(d) of the CWA, and

the Environmental Protection Agency has been sued for failure to

develop Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) standards for these

waterbodies.

Comments Received After the Close of the Comment Period

On September 27, 1996, the California Resources Agency requested

NMFS to reopen the comment period and extend its decision date for 6

months because (1) there was substantial disagreement between

scientists as to the sufficiency and accuracy of the data upon which

NMFS was relying to make a determination; (2) during the 1996 field

season, fisheries biologists obtained significant new information

which, once complied, may influence NMFS' decision; (3) NMFS has not

had an opportunity to evaluate the cumulative effects of the variety of

efforts by landowners in California to complete multi-species Habitat

Conservation Plans (HCPs) and sustainable yield plans (SYPs) under the

California Forest Practice Rules (CFPRs); and (4) NMFS has not

thoroughly evaluated the protections for coho salmon provided under the

CFPRs and other existing State protective programs.

The California Resources Agency cites Oregon's recent submission to

NMFS on the role of ocean survival in judging coho population viability

as a basis for disagreement in California. While the results of these

modeling exercises and additional population viability analysis

relative to Oregon may be broadly applicable to California, California

does not have available the underlying information of stock abundance

that Oregon has to support its claim. Information in California, over

which there is no scientific debate, indicates that coho are severely

depressed and that they have been eliminated from nearly half of the

streams in which they occurred historically.

The California Resources Agency claims that data being developed

since the close of the comment period calls into question the accuracy

and sufficiency of the information currently in the administrative

record. Since the close of the comment period, NMFS has collected

additional information indicating that coho are present in streams in

which Brown and Moyle (1991) found none, and NMFS has received new

information from landowners indicating that new coho sites have been

identified. NMFS has incorporated most of the information provided in

the State's letter in its deliberations on this rule. This new

information did not substantially alter this final determination or the

reasons upon which it is based.

The California Resources Agency also suggests that NMFS would

benefit from waiting to evaluate the results of HCPs and SYPs that are

being developed by large timber landowners. While NMFS is encouraged by

these activities and intends to pursue these HCPs, NMFS cannot defer a

listing based on the prospect of future development of conservation

measures. NMFS' determination must be based on the best available

information after consideration of state and other efforts to protect

the species. These HCPs and other planned conservation efforts are

still in the developmental phase and, therefore, cannot be considered

to reduce the risks facing the species at this time. Neither does the

promise of a plan constitute a scientific disagreement, thus, despite

NMFS' support of these plans, they do not constitute a basis for delay.

Lastly, the California Resources Agency claims that NMFS has not

evaluated the CFPRs. NMFS has reviewed these rules and determined that

they are not being adequately implemented. While the CDFG commented

during the comment period in support of the proposed rule, the CDF did

not. Further, the Board of Forestry rejected efforts of the CDFG to

designate

[[Page 56141]]

coho as a sensitive species and develop special protective measures for

coho habitat. Nonetheless, NMFS is involved in discussions with the CDF

to determine how to improve implementation of the CFPRs. While the

CFPRs contain measures protective of watercourse and lake protection

zones, they allow activities in those zones that are harmful to coho

habitat. The CFPRs also contain exceptions that allow salvage without

environmental review or monitoring. However, as with the HCPs under

development, disagreement over the effectiveness of the State program

does not constitute a scientific disagreement and is likewise not a

reason for delay.

NMFS concludes that it would not be prudent to delay listing and

risk further population declines or habitat degradation in any part of

the Central California coast ESU. Moreover, the ESA requires that a

listing determination be made based ``* * * solely on the basis of the

best scientific information available after conducting a review of the

status of the species and after taking into account those efforts, if

any, being made by a state or foreign nation or any political

subdivision of any state or foreign nation to protect such species * *

*'' (16 USC 1533(b)(1); 50 CFR 424.11(b)). Such a determination must be

made in accordance with the timeframes set forth in the ESA. Therefore,

NMFS finds it appropriate to make a final listing determination at this

time.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA and NMFS listing regulations (50 CFR

part 424) set forth procedures for listing species. The Secretary of

Commerce must determine, through the regulatory process, if a species

is endangered or threatened based upon any one or a combination of the

following factors: (1) The present or threatened destruction,

modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (2)

overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or

educational purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4) inadequacy of

existing regulatory mechanisms; or (5) other natural or human-made

factors affecting its continued existence.

In the 1940s, estimated abundance of coho salmon in this ESU ranged

from 50,000 to 125,000 natural spawning adults. Today, it is estimated

that there are probably less than 6,000 naturally-reproducing coho

salmon, and the vast majority of these fish are considered to be of

non-native origin (either hatchery fish or from streams stocked with

hatchery fish).

The factors threatening naturally-reproducing coho salmon

throughout its range are numerous and varied. For coho salmon

populations in the Central California coast ESU, the present depressed

condition is the result of several long-standing, human-induced factors

(e.g., habitat degradation, harvest, water diversions, and artificial

propagation) that serve to exacerbate the adverse effects of natural

environmental variability from such factors as drought and poor ocean

conditions.

A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range

Logging, agricultural and mining activities, urbanization, stream

channelization, dams, wetland loss, and water withdrawals and

unscreened diversions for irrigation have contributed to the decline of

the Central California coast coho ESU. The following discussion

provides an overview of the types of activities and conditions that

adversely affect coho salmon in central California coast watersheds.

Depletion and storage of natural flows have drastically altered

natural hydrological cycles in many central California rivers and

streams. Alteration of streamflows has increased juvenile salmonid

mortality for a variety of reasons: migration delay resulting from

insufficient flows or habitat blockages; loss of usable habitat due to

dewatering and blockage; stranding of fish resulting from rapid flow

fluctuations; entrainment of juveniles into unscreened or poorly

screened diversions; and increased juvenile mortality resulting from

increased water temperatures (California Advisory Committee on Salmon

and Steelhead Trout, 1988; CDFG, 1991; CBFWA, 1991a; Bergren and

Filardo, 1991; Palmisano et al., 1993; Reynolds et al., 1993; Chapman

et al., 1994; Cramer et al., 1995; Botkin et al., 1995). In addition,

reduced flows degrade or diminish fish habitats via increased

deposition of fine sediments in spawning gravels, decreased recruitment

of new spawning gravels, and encroachment of riparian and non-endemic

vegetation into spawning and rearing areas.

Sufficient quantities of good quality water are essential for coho

survival, growth, reproduction, and migration. Important elements of

water quality include water temperatures within the range that

corresponds with migration, rearing and emergence needs of fish and the

aquatic organisms upon which they depend (Sweeney and Vannote, 1978;

Quinn and Tallman, 1987). Desired conditions for coho salmon include an

abundance of cool (generally in the range of 53.3 deg.F to 58.3 deg.F

(11.8 deg.C to 14.6 deg.C) Reiser and Bjornn, 1979), well oxygenated

water that is present year-round, free of excessive suspended sediments

and other pollutants that could limit primary production and benthic

invertebrate abundance and diversity (Cordone and Kelley, 1961; Lloyd

et al., 1987).

Numerous studies have demonstrated that land use activities

associated with logging, road construction, urban development, mining,

agriculture, and recreation have significantly altered coho salmon

habitat quantity and quality. Impacts of concern associated with these

activities include the following: alteration of streambank and channel

morphology, alteration of ambient stream water temperatures,

elimination of spawning and rearing habitat, fragmentation of available

habitats, elimination of downstream recruitment of spawning gravels and

large woody debris, removal of riparian vegetation resulting in

increased stream bank erosion, and degradation of water quality (CDFG,

1965; Bottom et al., 1985; California Advisory Committee on Salmon and

Steelhead Trout, 1988; CDFG, 1991; Nehlsen et al., 1991; California

State Lands Commission, 1993; Wilderness Society, 1993; Bryant, 1994;

CDFG, 1994; Brown et al., 1994; Botkin et al., 1995; McEwan and

Jackson, 1996). Of particular concern is the increased sediment input

into spawning and rearing areas that results from the loss of channel

complexity, pool habitat, suitable gravel substrate, and large woody

debris (Bottom et al., 1985; Higgins et al., 1992; FEMAT, 1993; USFS

and BLM, 1994b; Botkin et al., 1995).

Further, historical practices, such as the use of splash dams, and

widespread removal of beaver dams, log jams and snags from river

channels, have adversely modified fish habitat (Bottom et al., 1985).

Agricultural practices have also contributed to the degradation of

salmonid habitat on the West Coast through irrigation diversions,

overgrazing in riparian areas, and compaction of soils in upland areas

from livestock (Palmisano et al., 1993; Botkin et al., 1995). The

vigor, composition and diversity of natural vegetation can be altered

by livestock grazing in and around riparian areas. This in turn can

affect the site's ability to control erosion, provide stability to

stream banks, and provide shade, cover, and nutrients to the stream.

Mechanical compaction can reduce the productivity of the soils

appreciably and cause bank

[[Page 56142]]

slough and erosion. Mechanical bank damage often leads to channel

widening, lateral stream migration, and excess sedimentation.

Urbanization has degraded coho salmon habitat through stream

channelization, floodplain drainage, and riparian damage (Botkin et

al., 1995). When watersheds are urbanized, problems may result simply

because structures are placed in the path of natural runoff processes,

or because the urbanization itself has induced changes in the

hydrologic regime. In almost every point that urbanization activity

touches the watershed, point source and nonpoint pollution occurs.

Water infiltration is reduced due to extensive ground covering. As a

result, runoff from the watershed is flashier, with increased flood

hazard (Leopold, 1968). Flood control and land drainage schemes may

concentrate runoff, resulting in increased bank erosion which causes a

loss of riparian vegetation and undercut banks and eventually causes

widening and down-cutting of the stream channel. Sediments washed from

the urban areas contain trace metals such as copper, cadmium, zinc, and

lead (CSLC, 1993). These, together with pesticides, herbicides,

fertilizers, gasoline, and other petroleum products, contaminate

drainage waters and harm aquatic life necessary for coho salmon

survival. The California State Water Resources Control Board (1991)

reported that nonpoint source pollution is the cause of 50 to 80

percent of impairment to water bodies in California.

B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or

Education Purposes

Marine harvest of coho salmon occurs primarily in nearshore waters

off British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, and California. Recreational

fishing for coho salmon is pursued in numerous streams throughout the

central California coast when adults return on their fall spawning

migration. There are few good historical accounts of the abundance of

coho salmon harvested along the California coast (Jensen and Startzell,

1967). Consequently, those early records did not contain quantitative

data by species until the early 1950s.

Tody, coho salmon stocks are managed by NMFS in conjunction with

the PFMC, the states, and certain tribes. The central California coast

falls within the Federal salmon fishery management zone that stretches

from Horse Mountain, just north of Fort Bragg, CA, to the Mexico border

(PFMC Salmon Fishery Management Plan). Coho ocean harvest is managed by

setting escapement goals for Oregon Coastal Natural coho salmon. This

stock aggregate constitutes the largest portion of naturally produced

coho salmon caught in ocean salmon fisheries off California and Oregon

(PFMC, 1993). Using this index may have resulted in pre-1994

exploitation rates higher than central California populations could

sustain. The confounding effects of habitat deterioration, drought, and

poor ocean 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.

Collection for scientific research and educational programs has had

little or no impact on California coho salmon populations. In

California, most of the scientific collection permits are issued to

environmental consultants, Federal resource agencies, and universities

by the CDFG. Regulation of take is controlled by conditioning

individual permits. The CDFG requires reporting of any coho salmon

taken incidental to other monitoring activities; however, no

comprehensive total or estimate of coho salmon mortalities related to

scientific sampling are kept for any watershed in the State (F.

Reynolds, pers. comm.). The CDFG does not believe that indirect

mortalities associated with scientific use are detrimental to coho

salmon in California (F. Reynolds, pers. comm.).

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.

Coho salmon are exposed to numerous bacterial, protozoan, viral,

and parasitic organisms in fresh water and marine environments.

Specific diseases such as bacterial kidney disease (BKD),

ceratomyxosis, columnaris, furunculosis, infectious hematopoietic

necrosis, redmouth and black spot disease, Erythrocytic Inclusion Body

Syndrome, whirling disease, and others are present and known to affect

salmon and steelhead (Rucker et al., 1953; Wood, 1979; Leek, 1987, Cox,

1992; Foott et al., 1994; Gould and Wedemeyer, undated). Very little

current or historical information exists to quantify changes in

infection levels and mortality rates attributable to these diseases for

coho salmon. However, studies have shown that native fish tend to be

less susceptible to these pathogens than hatchery-reared fish (Buchanon

et al., 1983; Sanders et al., 1992).

Infectious disease is one of many factors that can influence adult

and juvenile survival (Buchanan et al., 1983). Disease may be

contracted through waterborne pathogens or by interbreeding with

infected hatchery fish (Fryer and Sanders, 1981; Evelyn et al., 1984

and 1986). Salmonids typically are infected with several pathogens

during their life cycle; however, a high intensity of infection (number

of organisms per host) and stressful conditions must usually occur

before the host/parasite balance favors the parasite (pathogen) and a

disease state occurs in the fish.

Many natural and hatchery coho populations throughout California's

coast have tested positive for the bacterium, Renibacterium

salmoninarum, the causative agent of BKD (Cox, 1992; Foott, 1992). The

overall incidence of BKD measured by direct fluorescent antibody

technique among Scott Creek coho salmon was 100 percent (13/13 fish)

and 95.5 percent (21/22 fish) among San Lorenzo River coho (Cox, 1992).

Waddell Creek coho salmon are also suspected of having near 100 percent

infection (D. Streig, pers. comm.). The CDFG recently initiated a

treatment protocol to attempt to control BKD outbreaks in hatchery fish

released into the Russian River and Scott Creek (Cox, 1992). The

impacts of this disease are subtle. Juvenile salmonids may survive well

in their journey downstream but may be unable to make appropriate

changes in kidney function for a successful transition to sea water

(Foott, 1992). Stress during migration may also cause this disease to

come out of remission (Schreck, 1987). Water quantity and quality

during late summer is a critical factor in controlling disease

epidemics. As water quantity and quality diminishes, stress may trigger

the onset of these diseases in fish that are carrying the disease (Holt

et al., 1975; Wood, 1979; Matthews et al., 1986; Maule et al., 1988).

Freshwater predation by other salmonids is not believed to be a

major factor contributing to the decline of central California coho

salmon. Avian predators have been shown to impact some juvenile

salmonids in fresh water and near shore environments. Ruggerone (1986)

estimated that ring-billed gulls (Larus delawarensis) consumed 2

percent of the salmon and steelhead trout passing Wanapum Dam, in the

Columbia River, during the spring smolt outmigration in 1982. Wood

(1987) estimated that the common merganser (Mergus merganser), a known

freshwater predator of juvenile

[[Page 56143]]

salmonids, were able to consume 24 to 65 percent of coho salmon

production in coastal British Columbia streams. Known avian predators

in the nearshore marine environment include herons, cormorants, and

alcids (Allen, 1974). Cooper and Johnson (1992) and Botkin et al.

(1995) reported that marine mammal and avian predation may occur on

some local salmonid populations; however, they believed that it was a

minor factor in the decline of coastwide salmonid populations. With the

decrease in quality riverine and estuarine habitats, increased

predation by freshwater, avian, and marine predators will occur. With

the decrease in avoidance habitat (e.g., deep pools and estuaries, and

undercut banks) and adequate migration and rearing flows, predation may

play a small role in the reduction of some localized coho salmon

stocks.

Harbor seal and California sea lion numbers have increased along

the Pacific Coast. At the mouth of the Russian River, Hanson (1993)

reported that the foraging behavior of California sea lions and harbor

seals with respect to anadromous salmonids was minimal. Hanson (1993)

also stated that predation on salmonids appeared to be coincidental

with the salmonid migrations rather than dependent upon them.

Salmonids appear to be a minor component of the diet of marine

mammals (Scheffer and Sperry, 1931; Jameson and Kenyon, 1977; Graybill,

1981; Brown and Mate, 1983; Roffe and Mate, 1984; Hanson, 1993).

Principal food sources are small pelagic schooling fish, juvenile

rockfish, lampreys (Jameson and Kenyon, 1977; Roffe and Mate, 1984),

benthic and epibenthic species (Brown and Mate, 1983) and flatfish

(Scheffer and Sperry, 1931; Graybill, 1981).

Predation may significantly influence salmonid abundance in some

local populations when other prey are absent and physical conditions

lead to the concentration of adults and juveniles (Cooper and Johnson,

1992). Low flow conditions in streams can also enhance predation

opportunities, particularly in central California streams, where adult

coho may congregate at the mouths of streams waiting for high flows for

access (CDFG, 1995).

Several studies have indicated that piscivorous predators may

control the abundance and survival of salmonids. Holtby et al. (1990)

hypothesized that temperature-mediated arrival and predation by Pacific

hake may be an important source of mortality for coho salmon off the

west coast of Vancouver Island. Beamish et al. (1992) documented

predation of hatchery-reared chinook and coho salmon by spiny dogfish

(Squalus acanthias). Pearcy (1992) reviewed several studies of

salmonids off the Pacific Northwest coastline and concluded that

salmonid survival was influenced by the factional responses of the

predators to salmonids and alternative prey.

The relative impacts of marine predation on anadromous salmonids

are not well understood, but most investigators believe that marine

predation is a minor factor in coho salmon declines. Predators play an

important role in the ecosystem, culling out unfit individuals, thereby

strengthening the species as a whole. The increased impact of certain

predators has been to a large degree the result of ecosystem

modification. Therefore, it would seem more likely that increased

predation is but a symptom of a much larger problem, namely, habitat

modification and a decrease in water quantity and quality.

D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

A variety of state and Federal regulatory mechanisms exist to

protect coho habitat and address the decline of coho salmon in the

Central California coast ESU, but they have not been adequately

implemented.

The State of California has listed coho as endangered in streams

south of San Francisco pursuant to the State ESA, initiated a recovery

planning effort, and implemented a biological opinion and incidental

take statement to improve the implementation of CFPRs in the range of

the listed streams. In CDFG's comment letter (October 23, 1995), CDFG

relayed the determination of its Ad-hoc Coho Salmon Advisory Committee

that coho south of Punta Gorda qualify for state listing and

acknowledged that, while state listing (subsequently implemented by the

Fish and Game Commission) did not encompass the entire ESU, it is

essential to manage the ESU as a population unit. While the CDFG may

intend to expand its recovery planning effort to the entire ESU, it

cannot provide the protective measures of the State ESA unless it

expands the current listing to encompass the remainder of the ESU.

The Northwest Forest Plan and its Aquatic Conservation Strategy

provide a mechanism to ensure protection of functional salmonid habitat

on Federal lands. This is accomplished through a set of guidelines and

processes for watershed assessment to determine what forest practices

are acceptable within certain riparian buffer zones. Federal lands

comprise only about 5 percent of the Central California coast coho

salmon ESU, a proportion too small to secure recovery even with the

strictest of Federal forest management practices.

The CFPRs contain provisions that are protective if fully

implemented. For example, provisions for sensitive species designation

allow the Board to adopt special management practices for sensitive

species and their habitat. The Board did not adopt CDFG's proposal to

designate coho salmon as a sensitive species. The current process for

approving Timber Harvest Plans receives inadequate environmental

review, and monitoring of impacts of timber harvest operations is

insufficient to determine whether a particular operation damaged

habitat and, if so, how it might be mitigated. There are also

exceptions to the rules that allow timber harvest to occur without any

requirement for environmental review or monitoring.

The CWA provides for the protection of beneficial uses, including

the protection of fishery resources. However, implementation of this

statute has not been adequate to protect coho habitat. Seven streams or

rivers in central California have been designated as impaired

waterbodies pursuant to Section 303(d). The State Water Quality Control

Board is required to develop and implement water quality standards for

these waterbodies, and, if they do not, the Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) is required to do so. EPA is currently involved in

litigation for its failure to designate water quality criteria for

these water bodies.

While ocean fishing is regulated to reduce impacts on coho, state

sport fishing regulations continue to allow fishing for coho in inland

waters. The contribution of coho salmon to the in-river sport catch is

unknown, and losses due to injury and mortality from incidental capture

in other authorized fisheries, principally steelhead, are also unknown.

Current funding and personnel are not available to implement monitoring

programs to evaluate these impacts.

E. Other Natural or Human-made Factors Affecting Its Continued

Existence

Natural Factors

Long-term trends in rainfall and marine productivity associated

with atmospheric conditions in the North Pacific Ocean may have a major

influence on coho salmon production.

[[Page 56144]]

a. Drought

Much of the Pacific coast has experienced drought conditions during

the past 8 years, a situation which has undoubtedly contributed to the

decline of many salmonid populations. Drought conditions reduce the

amount of water available, resulting in reductions (or elimination) of

flows needed for adult coho salmon passage, egg incubation, and

juvenile rearing and migration. There are indications in tree ring

records that droughts more severe than the 6-year drought that

California recently experienced occurred in the past (Stine, 1994). The

key to survival in this type of variable and rapidly changing

environment is the evolution of behaviors and life history traits that

allow coho salmon to cope with a variety of environmental conditions.

Populations that are fragmented or reduced in size and range are

more vulnerable to extinction by natural events. Whether recent

climatic conditions represent a long-term change that will continue to

affect salmonid stocks in the future or whether these changes are

short-term environmental fluctuations that can be expected to reverse

in the near future remains unclear. Many of the coho salmon population

declines began prior to these recent drought conditions.

b. Floods

With high inherent erosion risk, urban encroachment, and intensive

timber management, flood events can cause major soil loss (Hagans et

al., Nawa et al., 1991; Higgins et al., 1992). As previously mentioned,

sedimentation of stream beds has been implicated as a principal cause

of declining salmonid populations throughout their range. Floods can

result in mass wasting of erodible hillslopes and failure of roads on

unstable slopes causing catastrophic erosion. In addition, flooding can

cause scour and redeposition of spawning gravels in typically

inaccessible areas.

During flood events, land disturbances resulting from logging, road

construction, mining, urbanization, livestock grazing, agriculture,

fire, and other uses may contribute sediment directly to streams or

exacerbate sedimentation from natural erosive processes (California

Advisory Committee on Salmon and Steelhead Trout, 1988; CSLC, 1993;

FEMAT, 1993). Judsen and Ritter (1964), the California Department of

Water Resources (CDWR, 1982b), and the California State Lands

Commission (1993) have stated that northwestern and central coastal

California have some of the most erodible terrain in the world. Several

studies have indicated that, in this region, catastrophic erosion and

subsequent stream sedimentation (such as during the 1955 and 1964

floods) resulted from areas which had been clearcut or which had roads

constructed on unstable soils (Janda et al., 1975; Wahrhaftig, 1976;

Kelsey, 1980; Lisle, 1982; Hagans et al., 1986).

As streams and pools fill in with sediment, flood flow capacity is

reduced. Such changes cause decreased stream stability and increased

bank erosion, and subsequently exacerbate existing sedimentation

problems (Lisle, 1982), including sedimentation of spawning gravels and

filling of pools and estuaries. Channel widening and loss of pool-

riffle sequence due to sedimentation has damaged spawning and rearing

habitat of all salmonids. By 1980, the pool-riffle sequence and pool

quality in some California streams still had not fully recovered from

the 1964 regional flood. In fact, Lisle (1982) and Weaver and Hagans

(1996) found that many Pacific coast streams continue to show signs of

harboring debris flow. Such streams have remained shallow, wide, warm,

and unstable since these floods.

c. Ocean Conditions

Large fluctuations in Pacific salmon catch have occurred during the

past century. Annual world harvest of Pacific salmon has varied from

347 million lb (772 million kg) in the 1930s to about 184 million lb

(409 million kg) in 1977 and back to 368 million lb (818 million kg) by

1989 (Hare and Francis, 1993). Mechanisms linking atmospheric and

oceanic physics and fish populations have been suggested for Pacific

salmon (Rogers, 1984; Nickelson, 1986; Johnson, 1988; Brodeur and Ware,

1992; Francis et al., 1992; Francis, 1993; Hare and Francis, 1993;

Ward, 1993). Many studies have tried to correlate the production or

marine survival of salmon with environmental factors (Pearcy, 1992;

Neeley 1994). Vernon (1958), Holtby and Scrivener (1989), and Holtby et

al. (1990) have reported associations between salmon survival and sea

surface temperature and salinity, especially during the first few

months that slamonids are at sea. Francis and Sibley (1991), Rogers

(1984), and Cooney et al. (1993) also found relationships between

salmon production and sea surface temperature. Some studies have tried

to link salmon production to oceanic and atmospheric climate change.

For example, Beamish and Bouillon (1993) and Ward (1993) found that

trends in Pacific salmon catches were similar to trends in winter

atmospheric circulation in the North Pacific.

Francis and Sibley (1991) and Francis et al. (1992) have developed

a model linking decadal-scale atmospheric variability and salmon

production that incorporates hypotheses developed by Hollowed and

Wooster (1991) and Wockett (1967), as well as evidence presented in

many other studies. The model developed by Francis et al. (1992)

describes a time series of biological and physical variables from the

Northeast Pacific that appear to share decadal-scale patterns.

Biological and physical variables that appear to have undergone shifts

during the late 1970s include the following: abundance of salmon

(Rogers, 1984, 1987; Hare and Francis, 1993) and other pelagic fish,

cephalopods, and zooplankton (Broadeur and Ware, 1992); oceanographic

properties such as current transport (Royer, 1989), sea surface

temperature and upwelling (Holowed and Wooster, 1991); and atmospheric

phenomena such as atmospheric circulation patterns, sea-surface

pressure patterns, and sea-surface wind-stress (Trenberth, 1990;

Trenberth et al., 1993).

Finally, Scarnecchia (1981) reported that near-shore conditions

during the spring and summer months along the California coast may

dramatically affect year-class strength of salmonids. Bottom et al.

(1986) believed that coho salmon along the Oregon and California coasts

may be especially sensitive to upwelling patterns because these regions

lack extensive bays, straits, and estuaries, such as those found along

the Washington, British Columbia, and Alaskan coasts, which could

buffer adverse oceanographic effects. The paucity of high quality near-

shore habitat, coupled with variable ocean conditions, makes freshwater

rearing habitat more crucial for the survival and persistence of many

coho salmon populations.

El Nino

An environmental condition often cited as a cause for the decline

of west coast salmonids is the condition known as ``El Nino.'' El Nino

is a warming of the Pacific Ocean off South America and is caused by

atmospheric changes in the tropical Pacific Ocean (Southern

Oscillation-ENSO). During an El Nino event, a plume of warm sea water

flows from west to east toward South America, eventually reaching the

coast where it is reflected south and north along the continents.

El Nino ocean conditions are characterized by anomalously warm sea

surface temperature and changes in thermal structure, coastal currents,

and

[[Page 56145]]

upwelling. Principal ecosystem alterations include decreases in primary

and secondary productivity and changes in prey and predator species

distributions. Several El Nino events have been recorded during the

last several decades, including those of 1940-41, 1957-58, 1982-83,

1986-87, 1991-92, and 1993-94. The degree to which adverse ocean

conditions can influence coho salmon production was demonstrated during

the El Nino event of 1982-83, which resulted in a 24 to 27 percent

reduction in fecundity and a 58 percent reduction (based on pre-return

predictions) in survival of adult coho salmon stocks originating from

the Oregon Production Index area (Johnson, 1988).

b. Manmade Factors

Artificial Propagation

Non-native coho salmon stocks have been introduced as broodstock in

hatcheries and widely transplanted in many coastal rivers and streams

in central California (Bryant, 1994; Weitkamp et al., 1995). Potential

problems associated with hatchery programs include genetic impacts on

indigenous, naturally-reproducing populations (see Waples, 1991),

disease transmission, predation of wild fish, difficulty in determining

wild stock status due to incomplete marking of hatchery fish, depletion

of wild stock to increase brood stock, and replacement rather than

supplementation of wild stocks through competition and continuted

annual introduction of hatchery fish (Waples, 1991; Hindar et al.,

1991; and Stewart and Bjornn, 1990).

While non-native fish have been introduced in the Central

California coast ESU, most hatchery programs are currently being

conducted without inter-ESU import of broodstock. Hatchery fish

releases are conducted based on a determination that the hatchery

stocks are considered similar to the native run. Efforts are made to

return hatchery fish to their natal streams, and they are held for an

acclimation period to increase the probability of imprinting. However,

there are inadequate resources to tag enough (perhaps all) hatchery

coho to monitor return rates and rates of straying (CDFG memorandum

dated October 23, 1995).

Listing Determination

The listing determination is based on the best available

information provided by the PSBTCs which were formed for the purpose of

collecting information from diverse and remote repositories,

information provided by co-manager agencies and tribes, information

provided in response to the solicitation for comments, new information

collected by NMFS and other scientists subsequent to the publication of

the proposed rule, and the results of two BRT meetings (September 2,

1994, memorandum from Michael Schiewe to William Stelle, Jr., and

October 15, 1996 memorandum from Michael Schiewe to William Stelle, Jr.

and Hilda Diaz-Soltero).

The rationale for the delineation of the Central California coast

coho salmon ESU is contained in the Status Review of coho salmon for

Washington, Oregon, and California (Weitkamp et al., 1995) and

summarized in the proposed rule (60 FR 38011, July 25, 1995). There was

no disagreement over the designation of the boundaries of the Central

California coast coho Eus. Moreover, the CDFG's Ad-hoc Salmon Advisory

Committee confirmed that the appropriate unit for consideration is that

which NMFS had described (i.e., all coho reproducing in streams between

Punta Gorda, Humboldt County, CA and the San Lorenzo River, Santa Cruz

County, CA). The second BRT meeting on October 7 and 8, 1996,

reaffirmed the boundaries of this ESU.

The BRT also evaluated the status of existing hatchery coho

populations in this ESU and concluded, with the exception of Warm

Springs Hatchery, that hatchery fish should be included in the

definition of this ESU (BRT Memo, October 16, 1996). The hatchery

programs in this ESU are relatively small and they are being operated

as supplementation hatcheries rather than production hatcheries. They

are taking eggs from the rivers in which they operate and returning

fish to the river from which they were taken. Release of hatchery fish

occurs in streams with stocks similar to the native runs. The Warm

Springs Hatchery is a relatively recent mitigation hatchery established

in 1980. It was established with brood stock from an adjacent ESU and

non-native coho have been imported for brood stock on several

occasions. Based on recent and periodic use of non-native brood stock,

the BRT recommended that these hatchery fish not be considered part of

this ESU. In its comments on the proposed rule, CDFG stated that its

coho hatchery programs can be integrated into recovery plans for each

ESU within California through re-evaluation of each hatchery's goals

and constraints with program modifications where appropriate (CDFG,

October 23, 1995). NMFS is deferring its decision on the BRT's

recommendation until it has had the opportunity to discuss with the

CDFG and its cooperators/permit holders how they would incorporate

these hatchery programs into a coho conservation strategy.

The Status Review of Coho Salmon from Washington, Oregon, and

California (Weitkamp et al., 1995) and the proposed listing

determination for west coast coho salmon (60 FR 38011, July 25, 1995)

summarized the best available information regarding the current status

of the Central California coast coho ESU. In its proposed listing

determination, NMFS concluded that the Central California coho salmon

ESU should be proposed for listing as a threatened species, but

indicated that additional information would be gathered prior to making

a final determination. Specifically, NMFS indicated that it would: (1)

Gather additional biological information on the status of coho salmon

populations in this ESU; (2) assess the response, if any, of coho

salmon populations to recent coho protection measures proposed by the

PFMC and implemented by NMFS; (3) review and evaluate any new

protective measures implemented as a result of the State of

California's decision to list coho salmon south of San Francisco; (4)

review and evaluate any additional protective or conservation measures

implemented by the State or private landowners; and (5) evaluate the

progress made by the Resources Agency in its effort to coordinate the

development and implementation of a long-term conservation plan for

coho salmon in California.

NMFS scientists have collected new biological information on the

presence-absence of coho salmon in the Central California coast ESU

since the proposed listing in July 1995, and they have gathered

additional information on coho salmon presence for the period of 1994-

96 from other sources. Based on this new information, coho salmon show

a higher frequency of presence in this ESU than reported by Brown and

Moyle (1991) and Brown et al. (1994). Specifically, the new information

showed that coho salmon were present in 57 percent of the streams of

historical record in the Central California coast ESU compared with the

47 percent reported by Brown and Moyle (1991). Coho salmon were found

in an additional 23 streams where there was no historical record of

their occurrence. In addition, sampling data recently supplied by

several timber landowners suggest similar increases in occurrence of

coho in streams on their property. These new data suggest that coho

salmon are more widely distributed in the ESU than was previously

thought to

[[Page 56146]]

be the case, and indicate that additional and more widespread sampling

would improve our ability to assess the status of coho in this ESU. The

BRT reviewed this new information and concluded that the Central

California coast coho salmon ESU should be listed, but they did not

reach a consensus on whether the ESU was at risk of extinction or

whether it was likely to become at risk of extinction in the near

future.

Since 1994, the PFMC has recommended an ocean harvest management

regime that prohibits retention of coho and sets incidental ocean

harvest impact rate for coho of 12 percent. Recent data from Oregon

suggest that the in-river escapement of coho has increased during the

last few years due to the reduction in ocean harvest impacts. However,

without an adequate in-river sampling program in California to monitor

coho escapement levels, NMFS is not able to evaluate the relative

benefit of this level of fishing mortality other than to conclude that

the harvest impact rate is low compared to harvest rates for healthy

stocks, and incidental harvest rates authorized for endangered winter

chinook salmon in the Sacramento River and threatened spring/summer

chinook salmon in the Columbia River Basin.

The CDFG has implemented a cooperative effort with the CDF and

Santa Cruz County to address habitat issues and improve implementation

of the State's forest practice rules. The primary administrative

vehicle for this effort was a consultation between the CDFG and CDF and

the subsequent issuance of a biological opinion and incidental take

statement pursuant to section 2090 of California ESA. NMFS is

encouraged by the effort shown by the CDF, Board of Forestry, and

County of Santa Cruz to provide greater protection for coho salmon

habitat. However, these programs need to be evaluated for a period of

time to determine whether they are providing the intended habitat

protection.

NMFS has also identified and evaluated existing and new

conservation measures contributing to the conservation of coho salmon

in this ESU. Examples of watersheds where local coho conservation

efforts are being implemented are: San Lorenzo River (Santa Cruz

County), Lagunitas Creek (Marin County), Russian River and Gualala

River (Sonoma County), and the Garcia River and Navarro River

(Mendocino County). Specific efforts within these basins vary in scope

and complexity. In Santa Cruz County restoration and recovery efforts

range from coho trapping at a water diversion facility and movement to

rearing facilities, to County sponsored in-stream fish passage and

stream restoration projects. In Marin, Sonoma, and Mendocino Counties,

Resource Conservation Districts (RCD) are providing the focus for

agriculture and local conservation groups to use Federal grants to

develop and implement prioritized restoration plans. One of the best

examples of a coordinated effort has been the Garcia River Watershed

Advisory Group. In 1991 this group developed a restoration and

enhancement plan, and to date has completed many of the prioritized

actions. In the summer of 1996, this group began to focus on sediment

delivery and monitoring plans to evaluate restoration success, identify

data gaps, and monitor population trends. A similar, cooperative effort

has been initiated in the Russian River between the local RCD and the

Sonoma County Water Agency. NMFS encourages agencies and other groups

to continue these efforts and believes that successful watershed

restoration initiatives may provide an effective and efficient approach

to salmonid conservation on non-Federal lands in a manner that may

reduce the vulnerability of landowners to potential section 9 ``take''

liabilities through their adoption into a 4(d) rule.

In July 1995, the California Resources Agency initiated the Coastal

Salmon Initiative (CSI). The CSI is a community oriented planning

effort designed to produce a conservation program based on voluntary

measures and incentives to protect fish and wildlife habitat in a

manner that would protect the economic interests of communities within

the range of coho salmon. The process has been slow to progress and is

currently not expected to develop a plan for NMFS review until March

1997. If the plan is gauged likely to be successful, NMFS will consider

implementing it via a section 4(d) rule comparable to the FWS's 4(d)

rule for gnatcatchers in southern California. Because this effort is

only in its early stages of development and little concrete progress

has occurred to date, the CSI itself can have only a de minimis effect

on this listing decision. However, MNFS encourages the Resources Agency

to continue to process as it provides small timber land owners,

ranchers, and farmers a mechanism for fulfilling the requirements of

the ESA.

Based on its assessment of the available scientific and commercial

information on coho salmon in this ESU and the conservation measures

which are being implemented, NMFS has determined that the Central

California coast coho salmon ESU should be listed as a threatened

species. The Central California Coast coho salmon ESU consists of all

coho salmon naturally reproduced in streams between Punta Gorda,

Humboldt County, CA and the San Lorenzo River, Santa Cruz County, CA.

The determination as threatened is appropriate because of the

information contained in the original status review and received during

the comment period, confirmed by new information, indicating that coho

are present in watersheds where they had been reported to be extirpated

or not present historically, and because of the conservation efforts

being implemented by NMFS and the PFMC regarding the ocean fishing

impacts, measures to improve habitat south of San Francisco under the

State's 2090 agreement, and local efforts by RCDs to acquire funding

and restore coho aquatic habitat elsewhere within the ESU.

Prohibitions and Proposed Protective Measures

Section 9(a) of the ESA contains specific prohibitions that apply

to all endangered fish and wildlife species. These prohibitions, in

part, make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the

United States to ``take'' (including harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,

wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or attempt any such conduct),

import or export, transport in interstate or foreign commerce in the

course of commercial activity, or sell or offer for sale in interstate

or foreign commerce any listed species. It also is illegal to possess,

sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife that has

been taking illegally. These prohibitions apply to all individuals,

organizations, and agencies subject to U.S. jurisdiction. Certain

exceptions apply to agents of NMFS and State conservation agencies.

Sections 10(a)(1)(A) and 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA provide NMFS with

authority to grant exceptions for the ESA's ``taking'' prohibitions

(see regulations at 50 CFR Secs. 222.22 through 222.24). Section

10(a)(1)(A) scientific research and enhancement permits may be issued

to entities (Federal and non-Federal conducting research that involves

intentional take of listed species.

Section 4(d) of the ESA allows the promulgation of regulations ``to

provide for the conservation of [threatened] species,'' which may

include extending 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).

[[Page 56147]]

In this rulemaking, NMFS is extending, pursuant to section 4(d) of

the ESA, the section 9 prohibitions to the threatened Central

California coho salmon ESU, with the exceptions provided for under

section 10 of the ESA, in order to provide it with maximum and

immediate protection. As discussed below, NMFS may develop a regulation

pursuant to section 4(d) for the conservation of the species that would

be more flexible and more specific than the generic section 9

prohibitions.

NMFS is delaying, for 60 days, the prohibitions of section 9 both

with respect to scientific research and enhancement programs to provide

time to accept applications and process permits for such programs, and,

generally, in order to conclude discussions with CDFG and CDF regarding

agreements that will define activities that may occur without taking

coho salmon. Thus, the requirements of section 7 will be effective on

December 2, 1996, and the section 9 prohibitions on take will be

effective on December 30, 1996. This will minimize the disruption of

otherwise legal activities within the geographic range of this ESU.

For listed species, section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires Federal

agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or conduct are

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

to destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal

action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the

responsible Federal agency must enter into consultation with NMFS.

Examples of Federal actions most likely to be affected by listing

the Central California coast ESU include Corps of Engineers (COE)

section 404 permitting activities under the CWA, COE section 10

permitting activities under the River and Harbors Act and Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission licensing and relicensing for non-Federal

development and operation of hydropower and EPA promulgation of TMDLs.

These actions will likely be subject to ESA section 7 consultation

requirements which may result in conditions designed to achieve the

intended purpose of the project and avoid or reduce impacts to coho

salmon and its habitat within the range of the listed ESU.

There are likely to be Federal actions ongoing in the range of the

Central California coast ESU at the time that this listing becomes

effective. Therefore, NMFS will review all ongoing actions that may

affect the listed species with the Federal agencies, and will complete

formal or informal consultations, where requested or necessary, for

such actions as appropriate, pursuant to ESA section 7(a)(2).

NMFS has issued section 10(a)(1)(A) research or enhancement permits

for other listed species (e.g., Snake River chinook salmon, Sacramento

River winter-run chinook salmon) for a number of activities, including

trapping and tagging to determine population distribution and

abundance, and collection of adult fish for artificial propagation

programs. NMFS is aware of several sampling efforts for coho salmon in

the Central California coast coho ESU, including efforts by Federal and

state fisheries agencies, and private landowners. These and other

research efforts could provide critical information regarding coho

salmon distribution and population abundance.

Section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permits may be issued to non-

Federal entities to authorize take of listed species incidental to

otherwise lawful activities. The types of activities potentially

requiring a section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permit include the

operation and funding of hatcheries and release of artificially

propagated fish by the State, State or university research not

receiving Federal authorization or funding, the implementation of state

fishing regulations, and timber harvest activities on non-federal

lands. Several industrial timber companies with substantial

landownership within the boundaries of the Central California coast

coho ESU are in the process of developing HCPs and incidental take

permit applications for coho salmon. These HCPs are being developed as

multi-species plans in conjunction with both NMFS and the FWS.

NMFS and FWS published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59

FR 34272), a policy that NMFS shall identify, to the maximum extent

practicable at the time a species is listed, those activities that

would or would not constitute a violation of section 9 of the ESA. The

intent of this policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of

this listing on proposed and ongoing activities within the species'

range. NMFS thinks that, based on the best available information, the

following actions will not result in a violation of section 9:

1. Possession of Central California Coast coho salmon acquired

lawfully by permit issued by NMFS pursuant to section 10 of the ESA, or

by the terms of an incidental take statement pursuant to section 7 of

the ESA.

2. Federally approved projects that involve activities such as

silviculture, grazing, mining, road construction, dam construction and

operation, discharge of fill material, stream channelization or

diversion for which consultation has been completed, and when such

activity is conducted in accordance with any terms and conditions

provided by NMFS in an incidental take statement accompanied by a

biological opinion pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA.

3. Incidental catch of coho salmon by recreational anglers in

freshwater streams, provided they are fishing legally under California

fishing regulations (which must comply with a NMFS incidental take

permit) and the coho salmon is returned immediately to the water using

handling practices to minimize injury to the fish.

4. Diversion of water, provided a properly designed and functional

fish screen (i.e. meets NMFS screen criteria) is in place to prevent

entrainment of coho salmon and if resulting instream flow conditions do

not adversely affect coho salmon.

5. Ongoing habitat restoration efforts that have been reviewed and

approved by NMFS.

Activities that NMFS thinks could potentially harm coho salmon in

the Central California Coast ESU and result in ``take'', include, but

are not limited to:

1. Land-use activities that adversely affect coho salmon habitat

(e.g. logging, grazing, farming, road construction) in riparian areas

and areas susceptible to mass wasting and surface erosion.

2. Unauthorized destruction/alteration of the species' habitat,

such as removal of large woody debris or riparian shade canopy,

dredging, discharge of fill material, draining, ditching, diverting,

blocking, or altering stream channels or surface or ground water flow.

3. Discharges or dumping of toxic chemicals or other pollutants

(i.e., sewage, oil, and gasoline) into waters or riparian areas

supporting the species.

4. Violation of discharge permits.

5. Pesticide applications in violation of label restrictions.

6. Interstate and foreign commerce of central California coast coho

salmon (commerce across state lines and international boundaries) and

import/export of central California coast coho salmon without prior

obtainment of a threatened or endangered species permit.

7. Unauthorized collecting or handling of the species. Permits to

conduct these activities are available for purposes of scientific

research or to

[[Page 56148]]

enhance the propagation or survival of the species.

8. Introduction of non-native species likely to prey on salmon or

displace them from their habitat.

This list is not exhaustive. It is intended to provide some

examples of the types of activities that might be considered by the

NMFS as constituting a ``take'' of Central California coast coho salmon

under the ESA and its regulations. Questions regarding whether specific

activities will constitute a violation of section 9, and general

inquiries regarding prohibitions and permits, should be directed to

NMFS (see ADDRESSES).

Conservation Measures

Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or

threatened under the ESA include recognition, recovery actions, Federal

agency consultation requirements, and prohibitions on taking.

Recognition through listing promotes public awareness and conservation

actions by Federal, State, and local agencies, private organizations,

and individuals.

Several protective and recovery efforts are underway to address

problems contributing to the decline of the Central California coast

coho salmon ESU. These include the listing of coho salmon south of San

Francisco under CESA, the implementation of improved protective

measures for timber harvest in watersheds south of San Francisco, and

the development of a recovery plan for coho salmon south of San

Francisco. Other important future efforts include development of the

California Resources Agency's CSI, the development of several HCPs by

industrial timber companies, and development of a Memorandum of

Understanding (MOU) with Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)

and others.

As discussed under the listing determination, NMFS encourages the

State to continue its work with the CSI to create a comprehensive

conservation plan for coho salmon throughout California. NMFS thinks

these cooperative conservation efforts wherein diverse stakeholders

achieve both environmental and economic goals are essential components

of recovery planning for coho salmon and other salmonids. Even after a

final listing of the Central California coho salmon ESU, the CSI

process can serve as an important forum to assist NMFS in the

development of ESA 4(d) regulations for listed salmonids.

The California Forest Practices Act provides a process to list

threatened or endangered species as ``Sensitive Species,'' thereby

requiring additional protection measures either throughout the species

range or specific to individual watershed basins. This process could be

employed to provide substantial conservation benefits for coho salmon

in the central California coast ESU, where at present more than 90

percent of the land is in private ownership, and silviculture is a

predominant land use activity. In response to the listing of the

Central California coast salmon ESU, the CDF, State Water Resources

Control Board, and CDFG, in cooperation with Federal agencies, could

provide special emphasis to habitat areas containing listed coho salmon

to promote their recovery.

NMFS will assess new scientific information as it becomes available

and will continue to assess the degree to which ongoing Federal, state,

and local conservation initiatives reduce the risks faced by coho

salmon in the Central California coast coho salmon ESU. If these or

future initiatives clearly ameliorate risk factors and demonstrate that

the species is recovering, NMFS will reconsider the listing status.

Information regarding the efficacy of conservation efforts and any new

scientific data regarding the Central California Coast coho salmon ESU

should be submitted to NMFS (see ADDRESSES).

NMFS intends to move rapidly during the next year to develop and

implement a strategy to halt the decline and begin the recovery of coho

salmon populations within the Central California coast coho salmon ESU.

Because the vast majority of land in this ESU is in private ownership

(ca. 90 percent), the key to protecting and recovering coho salmon in

this ESU will be the implementation of conservation measures on private

lands. Also, because coho salmon in this ESU are being listed as

threatened, NMFS intends to take full advantage of section 4(d) of the

ESA to define and authorize incidental take of coho salmon and its

habitat in association with various land use activities on private

lands. Key elements of the coho salmon conservation strategy that NMFS

will pursue include:

1. Development of ESA 4(d) Rules--NMFS intends to pursue the

development of one or more ESA 4(d) rules that will identify

conservation measures and strategies for various non-federal land use

sectors (e.g. timber harvest, agriculture, and grazing, etc.) and

define acceptable levels of incidental take. NMFS thinks that the

California Resources Agency's CSI can serve as a particularly useful

forum for developing these conservation strategies, since a broad range

of stakeholder groups participate in the CSI process. NMFS, therefore,

encourages rapid progress by the participants in the CSI so that its

work products can contribute to or be incorporated into a 4(d) rule

that may define, with greater specificity, permissible activities and

protect landowners from potential section 9 liabilities.

2. Development of Interim/Long-term Protective Strategies for

Timber Harvest--NMFS will continue to work aggressively with the

California Board of Forestry and CDF to develop guidelines for the

development of Timber Harvest plans which do not result in the take of

coho salmon, including harm to the species by degradation of its

habitat. In addition, NMFS will work with the Bureau of Forestry, CDF,

and landowners to develop protection strategies for coho salmon and its

habitat throughout the ESU. These strategies may also reduce harm or

incidental take of coho salmon as a result of modification to habitat.

NMFS is hopeful that this type of protection plan can be incorporated

into an ESA 4(d) rule which will address smaller landowners in this

ESU.

3. Development of Multi-Species HCPs and ITPs--NMFS will continue

to work with large industrial timber landowners within this ESU to

develop HCPs which protect and conserve coho salmon and its habitat,

while at the same time allowing landowners to conduct their economic

activities with long-term certainty. NMFS will continue its commitment

to work with the FWS to develop multi-species HCPs and issue multi-

species ITPs. These efforts are important because large landowners

control and manage a substantial portion of coho salmon habitat within

the Central California coast coho salmon ESU.

4. Development and Implementation of an MOU with NRCS and others--

NMFS will continue working with the Natural Resource Conservation

Service, FWS, EPA, the State, local and private interests (e.g. The

California Association of Resource Conservation Districts) to develop

and implement a voluntary, watershed-based, locally driven program to

assist the agricultural and grazing community in complying with Federal

and State endangered species and water quality laws including

protecting coho salmon and its habitat. Both technical and financial

assistance will be made available to farmers in high-priority

watersheds.

5. Ocean Harvest Management--NMFS expects that it will be necessary

to continue the restrictions on coho

[[Page 56149]]

salmon harvest that have been in place since 1994 to protect listed and

proposed coho salmon populations. At this time, NMFS does not think

that further restrictions on the ocean chinook fisheries are needed to

reduce ocean harvest impacts on coho salmon.

6. State-managed Fisheries and Hatcheries--NMFS intends to work

with the State of California to evaluate its current fisheries

management regulations and hatchery activities to ensure that impacts

to coho salmon from in-river recreational fisheries and State managed

hatchery practices are minimized. As necessary, NMFS will work with the

State to amend its sportfishing regulations and provide incidental take

authorization for recreational fisheries targeting other species of

salmon, steelhead and trout. Similarly, NMFS will review and authorize

appropriate hatchery practices.

7. Develop and Implement Recovery Plan--NMFS intends to establish a

recovery team to develop a recovery plan for coho salmon once the final

decisions on coho salmon status coastwide are completed by the agency

in the coming months. In the interim, NMFS will continue to work with

the State in its efforts to develop a recovery plan for coho salmon

populations south of San Francisco where the species has been listed

under the CESA.

Critical Habitat

Section 4(a)(3)(A) of the ESA requires that, to the extent prudent

and determinable, critical habitat be designated concurrently with the

listing of a species. NMFS has completed its analysis of the biological

status of the Central California Coast coho salmon ESU, but has not

completed the analysis necessary for the designation of critical

habitat. NMFS has decided to proceed with the final listing

determination now and to proceed with the designation of critical

habitat in a separate rulemaking. Section 4(b)(6)(C)(ii) provides that,

where critical habitat is not determinable at the time of final

listing, NMFS may extend the period for designating critical habitat by

not more than one additional year. Congress further stated in the 1982

amendments to the ESA, ``where the biology relating to the status of

the species is clear, it should not be denied the protection of the Act

because of the inability of the Secretary to complete the work

necessary to designate critical habitat.'' H. Rep. No. 567, 97th Cong.,

2d Sess. 19 (1982). NMFS believes that this final listing determination

is appropriate and necessary to protect the ESU and is consistent with

congressional direction.

NMFS further concludes that critical habitat is not determinable at

this time because information sufficient to perform the required

analysis of the impacts of the designation is lacking. NMFS has

solicited information necessary to designate critical habitat in its

proposed rule (60 FR 38011, July 25, 1995) and will consider such

information in the proposed designation. Specifically, designation

requires a determination of those physical and biological features that

are essential to the conservation of the species and which may require

special management considerations or protection; it further requires

the consideration of economic analysis of the impacts of the

designation. These analyses have not yet been completed, and,

therefore, critical habitat is not determinable at this time.

Classification

The 1982 amendments to the ESA in section 4(b)(1)(A) restrict the

information that may be considered when assessing species for listing.

Based on this limitation of criteria for a listing decision and the

opinion in Pacific Legal Foundation v. Andrus, 675 F. 2d 825 (6th Cir.,

1981), NMFS has categorically excluded all ESA listing actions from the

environmental assessment requirements of NEPA (48 FR 4413; February 6,

1984).

As noted in the Conference Report on the 1982 amendments to the

ESA, economic considerations have no relevance to determinations

regarding the status of the species. Therefore, the economic analysis

requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act are not applicable to

the listing process. Similarly, this final rule is exempt from review

under E.O. 12866.

References

The complete citations for the references used in this document can

be obtained by contacting Craig Wingert, NMFS (see ADDRESSES)

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 227

Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Marine

mammals, Transportation.

Dated: October 24, 1996.

Gary Matlock,

Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries

Service.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 227 is amended

as follows:

PART 227--THREATENED FISH AND WILDLIFE

1. The authority citation of part 227 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.

2. In Sec. 227.4, paragraph (h) is added to read as follows:

Sec. 227.4 Enumeration of threatened species.

* * * * *

(h) Central California 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 ESA (16

U.S.C. 1538) relating to endangered species apply to the threatened

species of salmon listed in Sec. 227.4 (f), (g), and (h), except as

provided in paragraph (b) of this section. These prohibitions shall

become effective for the threatened species of salmon listed in

Sec. 227.4(h) on December 30, 1996.

(b) Exceptions. (1) 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), and

(h). 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 227.21(a).

(2) The prohibitions of paragraph (a) of this section relating to

threatened species of salmon listed in Sec. 227.4 (h) of this part do

not apply to activities specified in an application for a permit for

scientific purposes or to enhance the propagation or survival of the

species provided that the application has been received by the

Assistant Administrator by December 30, 1996. This exception ceases

upon the Assistant Administrator's rejection of the application as

insufficient, upon issuance or denial of a permit, or on May 31, 1997,

whichever occurs earliest.

[FR Doc. 96-27887 Filed 10-25-96; 5:05 pm]

BILLING CODE 3510-22-P-M