[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 142 (Tuesday, July 25, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38011-38030]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-18146]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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