[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