[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 212 (Thursday, October 31, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 56138-56149]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-27887]



[[Page 56138]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 227

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


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

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS is issuing a final determination that the Central 
California coast coho salmon ESU (Oncorhynchus kisutch) is a 
``species'' under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended, 
and that it will be listed as a threatened species.
    In the 1940s, estimated abundance of coho salmon in this ESU ranged 
from 50,000 to 125,000 native coho salmon. Today, it is estimated that 
there are probably less than 6,000 naturally-reproducing coho salmon. 
The threats to naturally-reproducing coho salmon are numerous and 
varied. In the Central California coast ESU, the present depressed 
condition is the result of several human caused factors (e.g., habitat 
degradation, harvest, water diversions, and artificial propagation) 
that exacerbate the adverse effects of natural environmental 
variability from drought and poor ocean conditions. Existing regulatory 
mechanisms are either not adequate or not being adequately implemented 
to provide for the conservation of the Central California coast coho 
ESU.
    The taking of this species is prohibited, pursuant to section 4(d) 
and section 9 of the ESA. Certain exceptions to this taking prohibition 
pursuant to section 10 are provided. The taking prohibitions go into 
effect as provided in Sec. 227.21.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 2, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Craig Wingert, NMFS, Southwest Region, Protected Species 
Management Division, 501 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 
90802-4213, telephone (310/980-4021); or Marta Nammack, NMFS, Office of 
Protected Resources, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, 
telephone (301/713-1401).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Craig Wingert, telephone (310/980-4021), or Matra Nammack, telephone 
(301/713-1401).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) is an anadromous salmonid 
species that was historically distributed throughout the North Pacific 
Ocean from central California to Point Hope, AK, through the Aleutian 
Islands, and from the Anadyr River, Russia, south to Hokkaido, Japan. 
Historically, this species probably inhabited most coastal streams in 
Washington, Oregon, and northern and central California. Some 
populations, now considered extinct, and believed to have migrated 
hundreds of miles inland to spawn in tributaries of the upper Columbia 
River in Washington, and the Snake River in Idaho.
    In contrast to the life history patterns of other anadromous 
salmonids, coho salmon on the west coast of North America generally 
exhibit a relatively simple 3-year life cycle. Adults typically begin 
their freshwater spawning migration in the late summer and fall, spawn 
by mid-winter, and then die. Run and spawn timing of adult coho salmon 
vary between and within coastal and Columbia River Basin populations. 
Depending on river temperatures, eggs incubate in ``redds'' (gravel 
nests excavated by spawning females) for 1.5 to 4 months before 
hatching as ``alevins'' (a larval life stage dependent on food stored 
in a yolk sac). Following yolk sac absorption, alevins emerge from the 
gravel as young juveniles, or ``fry,'' and begin actively feeding. 
Juveniles rear in fresh water for up to 15 months, then migrate to the 
ocean as ``smolts'' in the spring. Coho salmon typically spend two 
growing seasons in the ocean before returning to their natal streams to 
spawn as 3 year-olds. Some precocious males, called ``jacks,'' return 
to spawn after only 6 months at sea.
    During this century, indigenous, naturally-reproducing populations 
of coho salmon are believed to have been eliminated in nearly all 
Columbia River tributaries and to be in decline in numerous coastal 
streams in Washington, Oregon, and California. Coho in at least 33 
stream/river systems have been identified by agencies and conservation 
groups as being at moderate or high risk of extinction. In general, 
there is a geographic trend in the status of west coast coho salmon 
stocks, with the southernmost and easternmost stocks in the worst 
condition.

Consideration as a ``Species'' Under the ESA

    The ESA defines a ``species'' to include any ``distinct population 
segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds 
when mature.'' NMFS published a policy describing how it would apply 
the ESA definitin of a ``species'' to anandronous salmonid species (56 
FR 58612, November 20, 1991). More recently, NMFS and the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service (FWS) published a joint policy, consistent with NMFS' 
policy, regarding the definition of distinct population segments (61 FR 
4722, February 7, 1996). The earlier policy is more detailed and 
applies specifically to Pacific salmonids and, therefore, was used for 
this determination. This policy indicates that one or more naturally 
reproducing salmonid populations will be considered distinct, and hence 
species under the ESA, if they represent an ESU of the biological 
species. To be considered an ESU, a population must satisfy two 
criteria: (1) It must be reproductively isolated from other population 
units of the same species, and (2) it must represent an important 
component in the evolutionary legacy of the biological species. The 
first criterion, reproductive isolation, need not be absolute, but must 
have been strong enough to permit evolutionarily important differences 
to occur in different population units. The second criterion is met if 
the population contributes substantially to the ecological/genetic 
diversity of the species as a whole. Guidance on the application of 
this policy is contained in a scientific paper ``Pacific Salmon 
(Oncorhynchus spp.) and the Definition of `Species' Under the 
Endangered Species Act'' and a NOAA Technical Memorandum ``Definition 
of `Species' under the Endangered Spcies Act: Application to Pacific 
Salmon.'' NMFS' proposed listing determination and rule (60 FR 38011, 
July 25, 1995) for west coast coho salmon and the west coast coho 
salmon status review (Weitkamp et al., 1995) describe the genetic, 
ecological, and life history characteristics, as well as human-caused 
genetic changes, that NMFS assessed to determine the number and 
geographic extent of coho salmon ESUs.

Previous Federal ESA Actions Related to Coho Salmon Listing

    The history of petitions received regarding coho salmon is 
summarized in the proposed rule published on July 25, 1995 (60 FR 
38011). The most comprehensive petition received was from the Pacific 
Rivers Council and 22 co-petitioners on October 20, 1993. In response 
to that petition, NMFS assessed the best available scientific and 
commercial data, including technical information from Pacific Salmon

[[Page 56139]]

Biological and Technical Committees (PSBTCs) in Washington, Oregon, and 
California. The PSBTCs consisted of scientists (from Federal, state, 
and local resource agencies, Indian tribes, industries, professional 
societies, and public interest groups) with technical expertise 
relevant to coho salmon.
    NMFS established a Biological Review Team (BRT), comprised of staff 
from its Northwest Fisheries Science Center and Southwest Regional 
Office, and completed a coastwide status review for coho salmon (NOAA 
Technical Memorandum, September 1995, entitled: ``Status Review of Coho 
Salmon from Washington, Oregon, and California'' [Weitkamp et al., 
1995]).
    Based on the results of the BRT report, and after consideration of 
other information and a review of existing conservation measures, NMFS 
published a proposed listing determination (60 FR 38011, July 25, 1995) 
which identified six ESUs of coho salmon ranging from southern British 
Columbia to central California. The Olympic Peninsula ESU was found to 
not warrant listing; the Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia ESU and the 
lower Columbia River/southwest Washington coast ESU were identified as 
candidates for listing; and the Oregon Coast ESU, Southern Oregon/
Northern California ESU, and Central California coast ESU were proposed 
for listing as threatened species.
    Pursuant to section 4(b)(6)(B)(i), NMFS may make a finding ``that 
there is a substantial disagreement regarding the sufficiency or 
accuracy of the available data relevant to the determination'' and, on 
that basis, may extend the 1-year period for up to 6 months to solicit 
and analyze additional data. NMFS has concluded that a 6-month 
extension is warranted for the Oregon Coast and Southern Oregon/
Northern California ESUs. For NMFS' determination on the 6-month 
extension, see the Notices section of this Federal Register.

Summary of Comments Regarding the Central California Coast Coho 
ESUs

    NMFS held two public hearings in California (Rohnert Park and 
Eureka) to solicit comments on the proposed listing determination for 
west coast coho salmon. Forty-seven individuals presented testimony at 
the hearings. During the 90-day public comment period, NMFS received 17 
written comments on the proposed rule from state, Federal, and local 
government agencies, Indian tribes, non-government organizations, the 
scientific community, and other individuals. Of the comments received, 
35 supported the listing and 5 opposed the listing. The majority of 
comments (44) addressed factors for the decline of coho salmon. Twenty-
two commenters stated that existing regulatory mechanisms, including 
enforcement, were inadequate to protect coho salmon and their habitats. 
A summary of major comments received during the public comment period 
and public hearings, grouped by major issue categories, is presented 
below.

Issue 1: Sufficiency of Scientific Information

    Many commenters urged NMFS to use the best available scientific 
information in reaching a final determination regarding the risk of 
extinction faced by coho ESUs in California. All but one commenter 
supported the scientific conclusions reached by NMFS. This commenter 
specifically questioned the data used to determine the risk of 
extinction of coho salmon in the Russian River Basin.
    NMFS is required under section 4(b) of the ESA to use only the best 
scientific and commercial data available in making a determination. 
However, the available information regarding the historic and present 
abundance of coho salmon throughout the Central California coast coho 
salmon ESU is limited. NMFS' 1995 west coast salmon status review 
(Weitkamp et al., 1995), together with recent information collected by 
NMFS scientists and information provided to NMFS by other sources since 
the proposed listing determination was published, represent the best 
scientific information presently available for coho salmon populations 
in the Central California coast ESU. This information indicates that 
coho salmon in the southern portion of the ESU (south of San Francisco 
Bay) are severely depressed, though most of the coho production within 
this ESU originated from coastal watersheds north of San Francisco Bay 
(CDFG, 1991). Nehlsen et al. (1991) provided no information on 
individual coho salmon in central California but identified coho in 
streams and rivers north of San Francisco as being at moderate risk of 
extinction and those south of San Francisco as being at high risk of 
extinction. Higgins et al. (1992) considered only drainages from the 
Russian River north and identified four coho salmon stocks within the 
central California coast ESU as being at risk (three of special concern 
and one, the Gualala River, as being at a high risk of extinction). The 
most comprehensive review of coho salmon in California was conducted by 
Brown and Moyle (1991) and summarized by Brown et al. (1994). They 
reported that coho in California have declined or disappeared from all 
streams in which they were historically recorded.

Issue 2: Status of the Central California Coast Coho ESU

    Forty comments received by NMFS addressed the status of California 
coho salmon populations. The vast majority of the comments (91 percent) 
stated that the Central California coast ESU should be listed as 
endangered based on the scientific information available and presented 
in the state and federal status reviews. The remaining commenters 
stated coho salmon in central California should be listed as 
threatened, primarily based on conservation efforts currently being 
implemented.
    In determining the status of the Central California coast coho ESU 
under the ESA, NMFS considers both the scientific information on the 
status and risk faced by the ESU. In assessing the risk of extinction 
faced by a species, NMFS considers ``those efforts, if any, being made 
by any State or foreign nation, or any political subdivision of a State 
or foreign nation, to protect such species'' (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(1)(A); 
50 CFR 424.11(f)).
    Based on a review of the status of coho south of San Francisco 
(Anderson, 1995), the California Fish and Game Commission decided to 
list coho south of San Francisco as endangered under the California ESA 
(CESA), effective January 1, 1996. The California Department of 
Forestry (CDF) and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) 
have implemented protective measures for coho salmon stocks and their 
habitats south of San Francisco Bay which represent an improvement over 
the existing forest rules and practices.
    NMFS thinks that the State's efforts to protect coho south of San 
Francisco may prove to be effective in mitigating adverse impacts, but 
it is premature to conclude that they reduce the risk facing the 
species to such an extent that the determination would be different. In 
the remainder of the ESU, NMFS has collected information indicating 
that coho are present in streams in which they were not previously 
reported historically and from which they had been reported to have 
been extirpated (Adams, 1996; August 27, 1996, Memorandum A. MacCall to 
H. Diaz-Soltero). In addition, a number of water-shed groups are 
involved in restoration projects within this ESU, and steps have been 
taken by the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) and NMFS to 
curtail the adverse effects of ocean fishing. Therefore, NMFS has 
determined that, even though the

[[Page 56140]]

absolute numbers of fish in this ESU are low, the ESU is not in 
imminent danger of extinction, and it is appropriately designated as 
threatened.

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

    Forty-four comments addressed factors regarding the decline of coho 
salmon and the damage or loss of their habitats. Thirty-eight 
individuals commented on the degraded, blocked, fragmented, and 
generally poor quality of coho salmon habitat; 24 cited the adverse 
effects of logging, and 11 discussed adverse effects of agricultural 
activities on coho salmon and their habitats; 21 commented that poor 
water quality conditions, primarily excessive warm water temperatures, 
were outside the preferred range for salmonids during the summer; 19 
indicated that point and non-point source pollution including 
sedimentation, municipal and industrial effluent, and herbicides/
pesticides, have contributed to the decline of the species; 8 commented 
that hatchery practices, primarily excessive out-of-basin plantings, 
disease, and competition with natural fish for food and space, have 
contributed to the decline of the species; 7 commented that excessive 
fishing had occurred; 6 commented that past and present mining 
activities have contributed to the decline of the species; 6 commented 
that urbanization activities have contributed to the decline of the 
species; 5 commented that there has been increased predation on coho 
salmon from pinniped, fish, and avian predators; and two commented on 
the effects that drought (e.g., 1976-77 and 1986-92) has had on coho 
salmon populations in California.
    NMFS agrees with the commenters that many factors, past and 
present, have contributed to the decline of coho salmon. New 
information provided by commenters and responses to this information 
have been incorporated in the Summary of Factors Affecting Coho Salmon.

Issue 4: Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    Two commenters acknowledged that past timber and mining activities 
contributed to the decline of coho salmon but maintained that existing 
regulatory mechanisms (e.g., the California Forest Practices Act 
(CFPA), Clean Water Act (CWA), mining regulations) and review processes 
are sufficient for the protection of coho salmon and their habitats. 
Twenty-two commented that existing regulatory mechanisms (e.g., CFPA 
and CWA), including enforcement, and inadequate to protect coho salmon 
and their habitats.
    Several commenters stated that current logging practices have 
dramatically improved over those of the past, decreasing the impact of 
present-day logging on habitat. Present-day logging practices have 
improved over those of the past; however, timber harvest is still a 
major land use in the Central California coast ESU, and fish habitat is 
still recovering from past logging practices. In addition, the 
incremental impacts of present-day land management practices, when 
added to impacts of past land management practices and other risk 
factors, continue to pose a serious threat to Central California coast 
coho.
    Although several commenters describe the CFPA as being capable of 
protecting coho salmon and their ecosystems, little evidence has been 
provided to support these claims. While the CFPA attempts to achieve 
fish habitat protection by establishing ``Water and Lake Protection 
Zones,'' there is no substantive body of evidence to demonstrate that 
the level of protection is sufficient to conserve the anadromous fish 
habitat and ecosystems upon which coho salmon in the Central California 
coast coho salmon ESU depend. Neither has the CWA been used to its full 
potential. Seventeen water bodies in central and northern California 
have been designated as impaired under section 303(d) of the CWA, and 
the Environmental Protection Agency has been sued for failure to 
develop Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) standards for these 
waterbodies.

Comments Received After the Close of the Comment Period

    On September 27, 1996, the California Resources Agency requested 
NMFS to reopen the comment period and extend its decision date for 6 
months because (1) there was substantial disagreement between 
scientists as to the sufficiency and accuracy of the data upon which 
NMFS was relying to make a determination; (2) during the 1996 field 
season, fisheries biologists obtained significant new information 
which, once complied, may influence NMFS' decision; (3) NMFS has not 
had an opportunity to evaluate the cumulative effects of the variety of 
efforts by landowners in California to complete multi-species Habitat 
Conservation Plans (HCPs) and sustainable yield plans (SYPs) under the 
California Forest Practice Rules (CFPRs); and (4) NMFS has not 
thoroughly evaluated the protections for coho salmon provided under the 
CFPRs and other existing State protective programs.
    The California Resources Agency cites Oregon's recent submission to 
NMFS on the role of ocean survival in judging coho population viability 
as a basis for disagreement in California. While the results of these 
modeling exercises and additional population viability analysis 
relative to Oregon may be broadly applicable to California, California 
does not have available the underlying information of stock abundance 
that Oregon has to support its claim. Information in California, over 
which there is no scientific debate, indicates that coho are severely 
depressed and that they have been eliminated from nearly half of the 
streams in which they occurred historically.
    The California Resources Agency claims that data being developed 
since the close of the comment period calls into question the accuracy 
and sufficiency of the information currently in the administrative 
record. Since the close of the comment period, NMFS has collected 
additional information indicating that coho are present in streams in 
which Brown and Moyle (1991) found none, and NMFS has received new 
information from landowners indicating that new coho sites have been 
identified. NMFS has incorporated most of the information provided in 
the State's letter in its deliberations on this rule. This new 
information did not substantially alter this final determination or the 
reasons upon which it is based.
    The California Resources Agency also suggests that NMFS would 
benefit from waiting to evaluate the results of HCPs and SYPs that are 
being developed by large timber landowners. While NMFS is encouraged by 
these activities and intends to pursue these HCPs, NMFS cannot defer a 
listing based on the prospect of future development of conservation 
measures. NMFS' determination must be based on the best available 
information after consideration of state and other efforts to protect 
the species. These HCPs and other planned conservation efforts are 
still in the developmental phase and, therefore, cannot be considered 
to reduce the risks facing the species at this time. Neither does the 
promise of a plan constitute a scientific disagreement, thus, despite 
NMFS' support of these plans, they do not constitute a basis for delay.
    Lastly, the California Resources Agency claims that NMFS has not 
evaluated the CFPRs. NMFS has reviewed these rules and determined that 
they are not being adequately implemented. While the CDFG commented 
during the comment period in support of the proposed rule, the CDF did 
not. Further, the Board of Forestry rejected efforts of the CDFG to 
designate

[[Page 56141]]

coho as a sensitive species and develop special protective measures for 
coho habitat. Nonetheless, NMFS is involved in discussions with the CDF 
to determine how to improve implementation of the CFPRs. While the 
CFPRs contain measures protective of watercourse and lake protection 
zones, they allow activities in those zones that are harmful to coho 
habitat. The CFPRs also contain exceptions that allow salvage without 
environmental review or monitoring. However, as with the HCPs under 
development, disagreement over the effectiveness of the State program 
does not constitute a scientific disagreement and is likewise not a 
reason for delay.
    NMFS concludes that it would not be prudent to delay listing and 
risk further population declines or habitat degradation in any part of 
the Central California coast ESU. Moreover, the ESA requires that a 
listing determination be made based ``* * * solely on the basis of the 
best scientific information available after conducting a review of the 
status of the species and after taking into account those efforts, if 
any, being made by a state or foreign nation or any political 
subdivision of any state or foreign nation to protect such species * * 
*'' (16 USC 1533(b)(1); 50 CFR 424.11(b)). Such a determination must be 
made in accordance with the timeframes set forth in the ESA. Therefore, 
NMFS finds it appropriate to make a final listing determination at this 
time.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

    Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA and NMFS listing regulations (50 CFR 
part 424) set forth procedures for listing species. The Secretary of 
Commerce must determine, through the regulatory process, if a species 
is endangered or threatened based upon any one or a combination of the 
following factors: (1) The present or threatened destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (2) 
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4) inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (5) other natural or human-made 
factors affecting its continued existence.
    In the 1940s, estimated abundance of coho salmon in this ESU ranged 
from 50,000 to 125,000 natural spawning adults. Today, it is estimated 
that there are probably less than 6,000 naturally-reproducing coho 
salmon, and the vast majority of these fish are considered to be of 
non-native origin (either hatchery fish or from streams stocked with 
hatchery fish).
    The factors threatening naturally-reproducing coho salmon 
throughout its range are numerous and varied. For coho salmon 
populations in the Central California coast ESU, the present depressed 
condition is the result of several long-standing, human-induced factors 
(e.g., habitat degradation, harvest, water diversions, and artificial 
propagation) that serve to exacerbate the adverse effects of natural 
environmental variability from such factors as drought and poor ocean 
conditions.

A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or 
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range

    Logging, agricultural and mining activities, urbanization, stream 
channelization, dams, wetland loss, and water withdrawals and 
unscreened diversions for irrigation have contributed to the decline of 
the Central California coast coho ESU. The following discussion 
provides an overview of the types of activities and conditions that 
adversely affect coho salmon in central California coast watersheds.
    Depletion and storage of natural flows have drastically altered 
natural hydrological cycles in many central California rivers and 
streams. Alteration of streamflows has increased juvenile salmonid 
mortality for a variety of reasons: migration delay resulting from 
insufficient flows or habitat blockages; loss of usable habitat due to 
dewatering and blockage; stranding of fish resulting from rapid flow 
fluctuations; entrainment of juveniles into unscreened or poorly 
screened diversions; and increased juvenile mortality resulting from 
increased water temperatures (California Advisory Committee on Salmon 
and Steelhead Trout, 1988; CDFG, 1991; CBFWA, 1991a; Bergren and 
Filardo, 1991; Palmisano et al., 1993; Reynolds et al., 1993; Chapman 
et al., 1994; Cramer et al., 1995; Botkin et al., 1995). In addition, 
reduced flows degrade or diminish fish habitats via increased 
deposition of fine sediments in spawning gravels, decreased recruitment 
of new spawning gravels, and encroachment of riparian and non-endemic 
vegetation into spawning and rearing areas.
    Sufficient quantities of good quality water are essential for coho 
survival, growth, reproduction, and migration. Important elements of 
water quality include water temperatures within the range that 
corresponds with migration, rearing and emergence needs of fish and the 
aquatic organisms upon which they depend (Sweeney and Vannote, 1978; 
Quinn and Tallman, 1987). Desired conditions for coho salmon include an 
abundance of cool (generally in the range of 53.3  deg.F to 58.3  deg.F 
(11.8  deg.C to 14.6  deg.C) Reiser and Bjornn, 1979), well oxygenated 
water that is present year-round, free of excessive suspended sediments 
and other pollutants that could limit primary production and benthic 
invertebrate abundance and diversity (Cordone and Kelley, 1961; Lloyd 
et al., 1987).
    Numerous studies have demonstrated that land use activities 
associated with logging, road construction, urban development, mining, 
agriculture, and recreation have significantly altered coho salmon 
habitat quantity and quality. Impacts of concern associated with these 
activities include the following: alteration of streambank and channel 
morphology, alteration of ambient stream water temperatures, 
elimination of spawning and rearing habitat, fragmentation of available 
habitats, elimination of downstream recruitment of spawning gravels and 
large woody debris, removal of riparian vegetation resulting in 
increased stream bank erosion, and degradation of water quality (CDFG, 
1965; Bottom et al., 1985; California Advisory Committee on Salmon and 
Steelhead Trout, 1988; CDFG, 1991; Nehlsen et al., 1991; California 
State Lands Commission, 1993; Wilderness Society, 1993; Bryant, 1994; 
CDFG, 1994; Brown et al., 1994; Botkin et al., 1995; McEwan and 
Jackson, 1996). Of particular concern is the increased sediment input 
into spawning and rearing areas that results from the loss of channel 
complexity, pool habitat, suitable gravel substrate, and large woody 
debris (Bottom et al., 1985; Higgins et al., 1992; FEMAT, 1993; USFS 
and BLM, 1994b; Botkin et al., 1995).
    Further, historical practices, such as the use of splash dams, and 
widespread removal of beaver dams, log jams and snags from river 
channels, have adversely modified fish habitat (Bottom et al., 1985).
    Agricultural practices have also contributed to the degradation of 
salmonid habitat on the West Coast through irrigation diversions, 
overgrazing in riparian areas, and compaction of soils in upland areas 
from livestock (Palmisano et al., 1993; Botkin et al., 1995). The 
vigor, composition and diversity of natural vegetation can be altered 
by livestock grazing in and around riparian areas. This in turn can 
affect the site's ability to control erosion, provide stability to 
stream banks, and provide shade, cover, and nutrients to the stream. 
Mechanical compaction can reduce the productivity of the soils 
appreciably and cause bank

[[Page 56142]]

slough and erosion. Mechanical bank damage often leads to channel 
widening, lateral stream migration, and excess sedimentation.
    Urbanization has degraded coho salmon habitat through stream 
channelization, floodplain drainage, and riparian damage (Botkin et 
al., 1995). When watersheds are urbanized, problems may result simply 
because structures are placed in the path of natural runoff processes, 
or because the urbanization itself has induced changes in the 
hydrologic regime. In almost every point that urbanization activity 
touches the watershed, point source and nonpoint pollution occurs. 
Water infiltration is reduced due to extensive ground covering. As a 
result, runoff from the watershed is flashier, with increased flood 
hazard (Leopold, 1968). Flood control and land drainage schemes may 
concentrate runoff, resulting in increased bank erosion which causes a 
loss of riparian vegetation and undercut banks and eventually causes 
widening and down-cutting of the stream channel. Sediments washed from 
the urban areas contain trace metals such as copper, cadmium, zinc, and 
lead (CSLC, 1993). These, together with pesticides, herbicides, 
fertilizers, gasoline, and other petroleum products, contaminate 
drainage waters and harm aquatic life necessary for coho salmon 
survival. The California State Water Resources Control Board (1991) 
reported that nonpoint source pollution is the cause of 50 to 80 
percent of impairment to water bodies in California.

B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Education Purposes

    Marine harvest of coho salmon occurs primarily in nearshore waters 
off British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, and California. Recreational 
fishing for coho salmon is pursued in numerous streams throughout the 
central California coast when adults return on their fall spawning 
migration. There are few good historical accounts of the abundance of 
coho salmon harvested along the California coast (Jensen and Startzell, 
1967). Consequently, those early records did not contain quantitative 
data by species until the early 1950s.
    Tody, coho salmon stocks are managed by NMFS in conjunction with 
the PFMC, the states, and certain tribes. The central California coast 
falls within the Federal salmon fishery management zone that stretches 
from Horse Mountain, just north of Fort Bragg, CA, to the Mexico border 
(PFMC Salmon Fishery Management Plan). Coho ocean harvest is managed by 
setting escapement goals for Oregon Coastal Natural coho salmon. This 
stock aggregate constitutes the largest portion of naturally produced 
coho salmon caught in ocean salmon fisheries off California and Oregon 
(PFMC, 1993). Using this index may have resulted in pre-1994 
exploitation rates higher than central California populations could 
sustain. The confounding effects of habitat deterioration, drought, and 
poor ocean conditions on coho salmon survival make it difficult to 
assess the degree to which recreational and commercial harvest have 
contributed to the overall decline of coho salmon in West Coast rivers.
    Collection for scientific research and educational programs has had 
little or no impact on California coho salmon populations. In 
California, most of the scientific collection permits are issued to 
environmental consultants, Federal resource agencies, and universities 
by the CDFG. Regulation of take is controlled by conditioning 
individual permits. The CDFG requires reporting of any coho salmon 
taken incidental to other monitoring activities; however, no 
comprehensive total or estimate of coho salmon mortalities related to 
scientific sampling are kept for any watershed in the State (F. 
Reynolds, pers. comm.). The CDFG does not believe that indirect 
mortalities associated with scientific use are detrimental to coho 
salmon in California (F. Reynolds, pers. comm.).

C. Disease or Predation

    Relative to effects of fishing, habitat degradation, and hatchery 
practices, disease and predation are not believed to be major factors 
contributing to the decline of West Coast coho salmon populations. 
However, disease and predation may have substantial impacts in local 
areas.
    Coho salmon are exposed to numerous bacterial, protozoan, viral, 
and parasitic organisms in fresh water and marine environments. 
Specific diseases such as bacterial kidney disease (BKD), 
ceratomyxosis, columnaris, furunculosis, infectious hematopoietic 
necrosis, redmouth and black spot disease, Erythrocytic Inclusion Body 
Syndrome, whirling disease, and others are present and known to affect 
salmon and steelhead (Rucker et al., 1953; Wood, 1979; Leek, 1987, Cox, 
1992; Foott et al., 1994; Gould and Wedemeyer, undated). Very little 
current or historical information exists to quantify changes in 
infection levels and mortality rates attributable to these diseases for 
coho salmon. However, studies have shown that native fish tend to be 
less susceptible to these pathogens than hatchery-reared fish (Buchanon 
et al., 1983; Sanders et al., 1992).
    Infectious disease is one of many factors that can influence adult 
and juvenile survival (Buchanan et al., 1983). Disease may be 
contracted through waterborne pathogens or by interbreeding with 
infected hatchery fish (Fryer and Sanders, 1981; Evelyn et al., 1984 
and 1986). Salmonids typically are infected with several pathogens 
during their life cycle; however, a high intensity of infection (number 
of organisms per host) and stressful conditions must usually occur 
before the host/parasite balance favors the parasite (pathogen) and a 
disease state occurs in the fish.
    Many natural and hatchery coho populations throughout California's 
coast have tested positive for the bacterium, Renibacterium 
salmoninarum, the causative agent of BKD (Cox, 1992; Foott, 1992). The 
overall incidence of BKD measured by direct fluorescent antibody 
technique among Scott Creek coho salmon was 100 percent (13/13 fish) 
and 95.5 percent (21/22 fish) among San Lorenzo River coho (Cox, 1992). 
Waddell Creek coho salmon are also suspected of having near 100 percent 
infection (D. Streig, pers. comm.). The CDFG recently initiated a 
treatment protocol to attempt to control BKD outbreaks in hatchery fish 
released into the Russian River and Scott Creek (Cox, 1992). The 
impacts of this disease are subtle. Juvenile salmonids may survive well 
in their journey downstream but may be unable to make appropriate 
changes in kidney function for a successful transition to sea water 
(Foott, 1992). Stress during migration may also cause this disease to 
come out of remission (Schreck, 1987). Water quantity and quality 
during late summer is a critical factor in controlling disease 
epidemics. As water quantity and quality diminishes, stress may trigger 
the onset of these diseases in fish that are carrying the disease (Holt 
et al., 1975; Wood, 1979; Matthews et al., 1986; Maule et al., 1988).
    Freshwater predation by other salmonids is not believed to be a 
major factor contributing to the decline of central California coho 
salmon. Avian predators have been shown to impact some juvenile 
salmonids in fresh water and near shore environments. Ruggerone (1986) 
estimated that ring-billed gulls (Larus delawarensis) consumed 2 
percent of the salmon and steelhead trout passing Wanapum Dam, in the 
Columbia River, during the spring smolt outmigration in 1982. Wood 
(1987) estimated that the common merganser (Mergus merganser), a known 
freshwater predator of juvenile

[[Page 56143]]

salmonids, were able to consume 24 to 65 percent of coho salmon 
production in coastal British Columbia streams. Known avian predators 
in the nearshore marine environment include herons, cormorants, and 
alcids (Allen, 1974). Cooper and Johnson (1992) and Botkin et al. 
(1995) reported that marine mammal and avian predation may occur on 
some local salmonid populations; however, they believed that it was a 
minor factor in the decline of coastwide salmonid populations. With the 
decrease in quality riverine and estuarine habitats, increased 
predation by freshwater, avian, and marine predators will occur. With 
the decrease in avoidance habitat (e.g., deep pools and estuaries, and 
undercut banks) and adequate migration and rearing flows, predation may 
play a small role in the reduction of some localized coho salmon 
stocks.
    Harbor seal and California sea lion numbers have increased along 
the Pacific Coast. At the mouth of the Russian River, Hanson (1993) 
reported that the foraging behavior of California sea lions and harbor 
seals with respect to anadromous salmonids was minimal. Hanson (1993) 
also stated that predation on salmonids appeared to be coincidental 
with the salmonid migrations rather than dependent upon them.
    Salmonids appear to be a minor component of the diet of marine 
mammals (Scheffer and Sperry, 1931; Jameson and Kenyon, 1977; Graybill, 
1981; Brown and Mate, 1983; Roffe and Mate, 1984; Hanson, 1993). 
Principal food sources are small pelagic schooling fish, juvenile 
rockfish, lampreys (Jameson and Kenyon, 1977; Roffe and Mate, 1984), 
benthic and epibenthic species (Brown and Mate, 1983) and flatfish 
(Scheffer and Sperry, 1931; Graybill, 1981).
    Predation may significantly influence salmonid abundance in some 
local populations when other prey are absent and physical conditions 
lead to the concentration of adults and juveniles (Cooper and Johnson, 
1992). Low flow conditions in streams can also enhance predation 
opportunities, particularly in central California streams, where adult 
coho may congregate at the mouths of streams waiting for high flows for 
access (CDFG, 1995).
    Several studies have indicated that piscivorous predators may 
control the abundance and survival of salmonids. Holtby et al. (1990) 
hypothesized that temperature-mediated arrival and predation by Pacific 
hake may be an important source of mortality for coho salmon off the 
west coast of Vancouver Island. Beamish et al. (1992) documented 
predation of hatchery-reared chinook and coho salmon by spiny dogfish 
(Squalus acanthias). Pearcy (1992) reviewed several studies of 
salmonids off the Pacific Northwest coastline and concluded that 
salmonid survival was influenced by the factional responses of the 
predators to salmonids and alternative prey.
    The relative impacts of marine predation on anadromous salmonids 
are not well understood, but most investigators believe that marine 
predation is a minor factor in coho salmon declines. Predators play an 
important role in the ecosystem, culling out unfit individuals, thereby 
strengthening the species as a whole. The increased impact of certain 
predators has been to a large degree the result of ecosystem 
modification. Therefore, it would seem more likely that increased 
predation is but a symptom of a much larger problem, namely, habitat 
modification and a decrease in water quantity and quality.

D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    A variety of state and Federal regulatory mechanisms exist to 
protect coho habitat and address the decline of coho salmon in the 
Central California coast ESU, but they have not been adequately 
implemented.
    The State of California has listed coho as endangered in streams 
south of San Francisco pursuant to the State ESA, initiated a recovery 
planning effort, and implemented a biological opinion and incidental 
take statement to improve the implementation of CFPRs in the range of 
the listed streams. In CDFG's comment letter (October 23, 1995), CDFG 
relayed the determination of its Ad-hoc Coho Salmon Advisory Committee 
that coho south of Punta Gorda qualify for state listing and 
acknowledged that, while state listing (subsequently implemented by the 
Fish and Game Commission) did not encompass the entire ESU, it is 
essential to manage the ESU as a population unit. While the CDFG may 
intend to expand its recovery planning effort to the entire ESU, it 
cannot provide the protective measures of the State ESA unless it 
expands the current listing to encompass the remainder of the ESU.
    The Northwest Forest Plan and its Aquatic Conservation Strategy 
provide a mechanism to ensure protection of functional salmonid habitat 
on Federal lands. This is accomplished through a set of guidelines and 
processes for watershed assessment to determine what forest practices 
are acceptable within certain riparian buffer zones. Federal lands 
comprise only about 5 percent of the Central California coast coho 
salmon ESU, a proportion too small to secure recovery even with the 
strictest of Federal forest management practices.
    The CFPRs contain provisions that are protective if fully 
implemented. For example, provisions for sensitive species designation 
allow the Board to adopt special management practices for sensitive 
species and their habitat. The Board did not adopt CDFG's proposal to 
designate coho salmon as a sensitive species. The current process for 
approving Timber Harvest Plans receives inadequate environmental 
review, and monitoring of impacts of timber harvest operations is 
insufficient to determine whether a particular operation damaged 
habitat and, if so, how it might be mitigated. There are also 
exceptions to the rules that allow timber harvest to occur without any 
requirement for environmental review or monitoring.
    The CWA provides for the protection of beneficial uses, including 
the protection of fishery resources. However, implementation of this 
statute has not been adequate to protect coho habitat. Seven streams or 
rivers in central California have been designated as impaired 
waterbodies pursuant to Section 303(d). The State Water Quality Control 
Board is required to develop and implement water quality standards for 
these waterbodies, and, if they do not, the Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA) is required to do so. EPA is currently involved in 
litigation for its failure to designate water quality criteria for 
these water bodies.
    While ocean fishing is regulated to reduce impacts on coho, state 
sport fishing regulations continue to allow fishing for coho in inland 
waters. The contribution of coho salmon to the in-river sport catch is 
unknown, and losses due to injury and mortality from incidental capture 
in other authorized fisheries, principally steelhead, are also unknown. 
Current funding and personnel are not available to implement monitoring 
programs to evaluate these impacts.

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

Natural Factors

    Long-term trends in rainfall and marine productivity associated 
with atmospheric conditions in the North Pacific Ocean may have a major 
influence on coho salmon production.

[[Page 56144]]

a. Drought
    Much of the Pacific coast has experienced drought conditions during 
the past 8 years, a situation which has undoubtedly contributed to the 
decline of many salmonid populations. Drought conditions reduce the 
amount of water available, resulting in reductions (or elimination) of 
flows needed for adult coho salmon passage, egg incubation, and 
juvenile rearing and migration. There are indications in tree ring 
records that droughts more severe than the 6-year drought that 
California recently experienced occurred in the past (Stine, 1994). The 
key to survival in this type of variable and rapidly changing 
environment is the evolution of behaviors and life history traits that 
allow coho salmon to cope with a variety of environmental conditions.
    Populations that are fragmented or reduced in size and range are 
more vulnerable to extinction by natural events. Whether recent 
climatic conditions represent a long-term change that will continue to 
affect salmonid stocks in the future or whether these changes are 
short-term environmental fluctuations that can be expected to reverse 
in the near future remains unclear. Many of the coho salmon population 
declines began prior to these recent drought conditions.
b. Floods
    With high inherent erosion risk, urban encroachment, and intensive 
timber management, flood events can cause major soil loss (Hagans et 
al., Nawa et al., 1991; Higgins et al., 1992). As previously mentioned, 
sedimentation of stream beds has been implicated as a principal cause 
of declining salmonid populations throughout their range. Floods can 
result in mass wasting of erodible hillslopes and failure of roads on 
unstable slopes causing catastrophic erosion. In addition, flooding can 
cause scour and redeposition of spawning gravels in typically 
inaccessible areas.
    During flood events, land disturbances resulting from logging, road 
construction, mining, urbanization, livestock grazing, agriculture, 
fire, and other uses may contribute sediment directly to streams or 
exacerbate sedimentation from natural erosive processes (California 
Advisory Committee on Salmon and Steelhead Trout, 1988; CSLC, 1993; 
FEMAT, 1993). Judsen and Ritter (1964), the California Department of 
Water Resources (CDWR, 1982b), and the California State Lands 
Commission (1993) have stated that northwestern and central coastal 
California have some of the most erodible terrain in the world. Several 
studies have indicated that, in this region, catastrophic erosion and 
subsequent stream sedimentation (such as during the 1955 and 1964 
floods) resulted from areas which had been clearcut or which had roads 
constructed on unstable soils (Janda et al., 1975; Wahrhaftig, 1976; 
Kelsey, 1980; Lisle, 1982; Hagans et al., 1986).
    As streams and pools fill in with sediment, flood flow capacity is 
reduced. Such changes cause decreased stream stability and increased 
bank erosion, and subsequently exacerbate existing sedimentation 
problems (Lisle, 1982), including sedimentation of spawning gravels and 
filling of pools and estuaries. Channel widening and loss of pool-
riffle sequence due to sedimentation has damaged spawning and rearing 
habitat of all salmonids. By 1980, the pool-riffle sequence and pool 
quality in some California streams still had not fully recovered from 
the 1964 regional flood. In fact, Lisle (1982) and Weaver and Hagans 
(1996) found that many Pacific coast streams continue to show signs of 
harboring debris flow. Such streams have remained shallow, wide, warm, 
and unstable since these floods.
c. Ocean Conditions
    Large fluctuations in Pacific salmon catch have occurred during the 
past century. Annual world harvest of Pacific salmon has varied from 
347 million lb (772 million kg) in the 1930s to about 184 million lb 
(409 million kg) in 1977 and back to 368 million lb (818 million kg) by 
1989 (Hare and Francis, 1993). Mechanisms linking atmospheric and 
oceanic physics and fish populations have been suggested for Pacific 
salmon (Rogers, 1984; Nickelson, 1986; Johnson, 1988; Brodeur and Ware, 
1992; Francis et al., 1992; Francis, 1993; Hare and Francis, 1993; 
Ward, 1993). Many studies have tried to correlate the production or 
marine survival of salmon with environmental factors (Pearcy, 1992; 
Neeley 1994). Vernon (1958), Holtby and Scrivener (1989), and Holtby et 
al. (1990) have reported associations between salmon survival and sea 
surface temperature and salinity, especially during the first few 
months that slamonids are at sea. Francis and Sibley (1991), Rogers 
(1984), and Cooney et al. (1993) also found relationships between 
salmon production and sea surface temperature. Some studies have tried 
to link salmon production to oceanic and atmospheric climate change. 
For example, Beamish and Bouillon (1993) and Ward (1993) found that 
trends in Pacific salmon catches were similar to trends in winter 
atmospheric circulation in the North Pacific.
    Francis and Sibley (1991) and Francis et al. (1992) have developed 
a model linking decadal-scale atmospheric variability and salmon 
production that incorporates hypotheses developed by Hollowed and 
Wooster (1991) and Wockett (1967), as well as evidence presented in 
many other studies. The model developed by Francis et al. (1992) 
describes a time series of biological and physical variables from the 
Northeast Pacific that appear to share decadal-scale patterns. 
Biological and physical variables that appear to have undergone shifts 
during the late 1970s include the following: abundance of salmon 
(Rogers, 1984, 1987; Hare and Francis, 1993) and other pelagic fish, 
cephalopods, and zooplankton (Broadeur and Ware, 1992); oceanographic 
properties such as current transport (Royer, 1989), sea surface 
temperature and upwelling (Holowed and Wooster, 1991); and atmospheric 
phenomena such as atmospheric circulation patterns, sea-surface 
pressure patterns, and sea-surface wind-stress (Trenberth, 1990; 
Trenberth et al., 1993).
    Finally, Scarnecchia (1981) reported that near-shore conditions 
during the spring and summer months along the California coast may 
dramatically affect year-class strength of salmonids. Bottom et al. 
(1986) believed that coho salmon along the Oregon and California coasts 
may be especially sensitive to upwelling patterns because these regions 
lack extensive bays, straits, and estuaries, such as those found along 
the Washington, British Columbia, and Alaskan coasts, which could 
buffer adverse oceanographic effects. The paucity of high quality near-
shore habitat, coupled with variable ocean conditions, makes freshwater 
rearing habitat more crucial for the survival and persistence of many 
coho salmon populations.

El Nino

    An environmental condition often cited as a cause for the decline 
of west coast salmonids is the condition known as ``El Nino.'' El Nino 
is a warming of the Pacific Ocean off South America and is caused by 
atmospheric changes in the tropical Pacific Ocean (Southern 
Oscillation-ENSO). During an El Nino event, a plume of warm sea water 
flows from west to east toward South America, eventually reaching the 
coast where it is reflected south and north along the continents.
    El Nino ocean conditions are characterized by anomalously warm sea 
surface temperature and changes in thermal structure, coastal currents, 
and

[[Page 56145]]

upwelling. Principal ecosystem alterations include decreases in primary 
and secondary productivity and changes in prey and predator species 
distributions. Several El Nino events have been recorded during the 
last several decades, including those of 1940-41, 1957-58, 1982-83, 
1986-87, 1991-92, and 1993-94. The degree to which adverse ocean 
conditions can influence coho salmon production was demonstrated during 
the El Nino event of 1982-83, which resulted in a 24 to 27 percent 
reduction in fecundity and a 58 percent reduction (based on pre-return 
predictions) in survival of adult coho salmon stocks originating from 
the Oregon Production Index area (Johnson, 1988).
b. Manmade Factors

Artificial Propagation

    Non-native coho salmon stocks have been introduced as broodstock in 
hatcheries and widely transplanted in many coastal rivers and streams 
in central California (Bryant, 1994; Weitkamp et al., 1995). Potential 
problems associated with hatchery programs include genetic impacts on 
indigenous, naturally-reproducing populations (see Waples, 1991), 
disease transmission, predation of wild fish, difficulty in determining 
wild stock status due to incomplete marking of hatchery fish, depletion 
of wild stock to increase brood stock, and replacement rather than 
supplementation of wild stocks through competition and continuted 
annual introduction of hatchery fish (Waples, 1991; Hindar et al., 
1991; and Stewart and Bjornn, 1990).
    While non-native fish have been introduced in the Central 
California coast ESU, most hatchery programs are currently being 
conducted without inter-ESU import of broodstock. Hatchery fish 
releases are conducted based on a determination that the hatchery 
stocks are considered similar to the native run. Efforts are made to 
return hatchery fish to their natal streams, and they are held for an 
acclimation period to increase the probability of imprinting. However, 
there are inadequate resources to tag enough (perhaps all) hatchery 
coho to monitor return rates and rates of straying (CDFG memorandum 
dated October 23, 1995).

Listing Determination

    The listing determination is based on the best available 
information provided by the PSBTCs which were formed for the purpose of 
collecting information from diverse and remote repositories, 
information provided by co-manager agencies and tribes, information 
provided in response to the solicitation for comments, new information 
collected by NMFS and other scientists subsequent to the publication of 
the proposed rule, and the results of two BRT meetings (September 2, 
1994, memorandum from Michael Schiewe to William Stelle, Jr., and 
October 15, 1996 memorandum from Michael Schiewe to William Stelle, Jr. 
and Hilda Diaz-Soltero).
    The rationale for the delineation of the Central California coast 
coho salmon ESU is contained in the Status Review of coho salmon for 
Washington, Oregon, and California (Weitkamp et al., 1995) and 
summarized in the proposed rule (60 FR 38011, July 25, 1995). There was 
no disagreement over the designation of the boundaries of the Central 
California coast coho Eus. Moreover, the CDFG's Ad-hoc Salmon Advisory 
Committee confirmed that the appropriate unit for consideration is that 
which NMFS had described (i.e., all coho reproducing in streams between 
Punta Gorda, Humboldt County, CA and the San Lorenzo River, Santa Cruz 
County, CA). The second BRT meeting on October 7 and 8, 1996, 
reaffirmed the boundaries of this ESU.
    The BRT also evaluated the status of existing hatchery coho 
populations in this ESU and concluded, with the exception of Warm 
Springs Hatchery, that hatchery fish should be included in the 
definition of this ESU (BRT Memo, October 16, 1996). The hatchery 
programs in this ESU are relatively small and they are being operated 
as supplementation hatcheries rather than production hatcheries. They 
are taking eggs from the rivers in which they operate and returning 
fish to the river from which they were taken. Release of hatchery fish 
occurs in streams with stocks similar to the native runs. The Warm 
Springs Hatchery is a relatively recent mitigation hatchery established 
in 1980. It was established with brood stock from an adjacent ESU and 
non-native coho have been imported for brood stock on several 
occasions. Based on recent and periodic use of non-native brood stock, 
the BRT recommended that these hatchery fish not be considered part of 
this ESU. In its comments on the proposed rule, CDFG stated that its 
coho hatchery programs can be integrated into recovery plans for each 
ESU within California through re-evaluation of each hatchery's goals 
and constraints with program modifications where appropriate (CDFG, 
October 23, 1995). NMFS is deferring its decision on the BRT's 
recommendation until it has had the opportunity to discuss with the 
CDFG and its cooperators/permit holders how they would incorporate 
these hatchery programs into a coho conservation strategy.
    The Status Review of Coho Salmon from Washington, Oregon, and 
California (Weitkamp et al., 1995) and the proposed listing 
determination for west coast coho salmon (60 FR 38011, July 25, 1995) 
summarized the best available information regarding the current status 
of the Central California coast coho ESU. In its proposed listing 
determination, NMFS concluded that the Central California coho salmon 
ESU should be proposed for listing as a threatened species, but 
indicated that additional information would be gathered prior to making 
a final determination. Specifically, NMFS indicated that it would: (1) 
Gather additional biological information on the status of coho salmon 
populations in this ESU; (2) assess the response, if any, of coho 
salmon populations to recent coho protection measures proposed by the 
PFMC and implemented by NMFS; (3) review and evaluate any new 
protective measures implemented as a result of the State of 
California's decision to list coho salmon south of San Francisco; (4) 
review and evaluate any additional protective or conservation measures 
implemented by the State or private landowners; and (5) evaluate the 
progress made by the Resources Agency in its effort to coordinate the 
development and implementation of a long-term conservation plan for 
coho salmon in California.
    NMFS scientists have collected new biological information on the 
presence-absence of coho salmon in the Central California coast ESU 
since the proposed listing in July 1995, and they have gathered 
additional information on coho salmon presence for the period of 1994-
96 from other sources. Based on this new information, coho salmon show 
a higher frequency of presence in this ESU than reported by Brown and 
Moyle (1991) and Brown et al. (1994). Specifically, the new information 
showed that coho salmon were present in 57 percent of the streams of 
historical record in the Central California coast ESU compared with the 
47 percent reported by Brown and Moyle (1991). Coho salmon were found 
in an additional 23 streams where there was no historical record of 
their occurrence. In addition, sampling data recently supplied by 
several timber landowners suggest similar increases in occurrence of 
coho in streams on their property. These new data suggest that coho 
salmon are more widely distributed in the ESU than was previously 
thought to

[[Page 56146]]

be the case, and indicate that additional and more widespread sampling 
would improve our ability to assess the status of coho in this ESU. The 
BRT reviewed this new information and concluded that the Central 
California coast coho salmon ESU should be listed, but they did not 
reach a consensus on whether the ESU was at risk of extinction or 
whether it was likely to become at risk of extinction in the near 
future.
    Since 1994, the PFMC has recommended an ocean harvest management 
regime that prohibits retention of coho and sets incidental ocean 
harvest impact rate for coho of 12 percent. Recent data from Oregon 
suggest that the in-river escapement of coho has increased during the 
last few years due to the reduction in ocean harvest impacts. However, 
without an adequate in-river sampling program in California to monitor 
coho escapement levels, NMFS is not able to evaluate the relative 
benefit of this level of fishing mortality other than to conclude that 
the harvest impact rate is low compared to harvest rates for healthy 
stocks, and incidental harvest rates authorized for endangered winter 
chinook salmon in the Sacramento River and threatened spring/summer 
chinook salmon in the Columbia River Basin.
    The CDFG has implemented a cooperative effort with the CDF and 
Santa Cruz County to address habitat issues and improve implementation 
of the State's forest practice rules. The primary administrative 
vehicle for this effort was a consultation between the CDFG and CDF and 
the subsequent issuance of a biological opinion and incidental take 
statement pursuant to section 2090 of California ESA. NMFS is 
encouraged by the effort shown by the CDF, Board of Forestry, and 
County of Santa Cruz to provide greater protection for coho salmon 
habitat. However, these programs need to be evaluated for a period of 
time to determine whether they are providing the intended habitat 
protection.
    NMFS has also identified and evaluated existing and new 
conservation measures contributing to the conservation of coho salmon 
in this ESU. Examples of watersheds where local coho conservation 
efforts are being implemented are: San Lorenzo River (Santa Cruz 
County), Lagunitas Creek (Marin County), Russian River and Gualala 
River (Sonoma County), and the Garcia River and Navarro River 
(Mendocino County). Specific efforts within these basins vary in scope 
and complexity. In Santa Cruz County restoration and recovery efforts 
range from coho trapping at a water diversion facility and movement to 
rearing facilities, to County sponsored in-stream fish passage and 
stream restoration projects. In Marin, Sonoma, and Mendocino Counties, 
Resource Conservation Districts (RCD) are providing the focus for 
agriculture and local conservation groups to use Federal grants to 
develop and implement prioritized restoration plans. One of the best 
examples of a coordinated effort has been the Garcia River Watershed 
Advisory Group. In 1991 this group developed a restoration and 
enhancement plan, and to date has completed many of the prioritized 
actions. In the summer of 1996, this group began to focus on sediment 
delivery and monitoring plans to evaluate restoration success, identify 
data gaps, and monitor population trends. A similar, cooperative effort 
has been initiated in the Russian River between the local RCD and the 
Sonoma County Water Agency. NMFS encourages agencies and other groups 
to continue these efforts and believes that successful watershed 
restoration initiatives may provide an effective and efficient approach 
to salmonid conservation on non-Federal lands in a manner that may 
reduce the vulnerability of landowners to potential section 9 ``take'' 
liabilities through their adoption into a 4(d) rule.
    In July 1995, the California Resources Agency initiated the Coastal 
Salmon Initiative (CSI). The CSI is a community oriented planning 
effort designed to produce a conservation program based on voluntary 
measures and incentives to protect fish and wildlife habitat in a 
manner that would protect the economic interests of communities within 
the range of coho salmon. The process has been slow to progress and is 
currently not expected to develop a plan for NMFS review until March 
1997. If the plan is gauged likely to be successful, NMFS will consider 
implementing it via a section 4(d) rule comparable to the FWS's 4(d) 
rule for gnatcatchers in southern California. Because this effort is 
only in its early stages of development and little concrete progress 
has occurred to date, the CSI itself can have only a de minimis effect 
on this listing decision. However, MNFS encourages the Resources Agency 
to continue to process as it provides small timber land owners, 
ranchers, and farmers a mechanism for fulfilling the requirements of 
the ESA.
    Based on its assessment of the available scientific and commercial 
information on coho salmon in this ESU and the conservation measures 
which are being implemented, NMFS has determined that the Central 
California coast coho salmon ESU should be listed as a threatened 
species. The Central California Coast coho salmon ESU consists of all 
coho salmon naturally reproduced in streams between Punta Gorda, 
Humboldt County, CA and the San Lorenzo River, Santa Cruz County, CA. 
The determination as threatened is appropriate because of the 
information contained in the original status review and received during 
the comment period, confirmed by new information, indicating that coho 
are present in watersheds where they had been reported to be extirpated 
or not present historically, and because of the conservation efforts 
being implemented by NMFS and the PFMC regarding the ocean fishing 
impacts, measures to improve habitat south of San Francisco under the 
State's 2090 agreement, and local efforts by RCDs to acquire funding 
and restore coho aquatic habitat elsewhere within the ESU.

Prohibitions and Proposed Protective Measures

    Section 9(a) of the ESA contains specific prohibitions that apply 
to all endangered fish and wildlife species. These prohibitions, in 
part, make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the 
United States to ``take'' (including harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, 
wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or attempt any such conduct), 
import or export, transport in interstate or foreign commerce in the 
course of commercial activity, or sell or offer for sale in interstate 
or foreign commerce any listed species. It also is illegal to possess, 
sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife that has 
been taking illegally. These prohibitions apply to all individuals, 
organizations, and agencies subject to U.S. jurisdiction. Certain 
exceptions apply to agents of NMFS and State conservation agencies.
    Sections 10(a)(1)(A) and 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA provide NMFS with 
authority to grant exceptions for the ESA's ``taking'' prohibitions 
(see regulations at 50 CFR Secs. 222.22 through 222.24). Section 
10(a)(1)(A) scientific research and enhancement permits may be issued 
to entities (Federal and non-Federal conducting research that involves 
intentional take of listed species.
    Section 4(d) of the ESA allows the promulgation of regulations ``to 
provide for the conservation of [threatened] species,'' which may 
include extending any or all of the prohibitions of section 9 to 
threatened species. Section 9 also prohibits violations of protective 
regulations for threatened species promulgated under section 4(d).

[[Page 56147]]

    In this rulemaking, NMFS is extending, pursuant to section 4(d) of 
the ESA, the section 9 prohibitions to the threatened Central 
California coho salmon ESU, with the exceptions provided for under 
section 10 of the ESA, in order to provide it with maximum and 
immediate protection. As discussed below, NMFS may develop a regulation 
pursuant to section 4(d) for the conservation of the species that would 
be more flexible and more specific than the generic section 9 
prohibitions.
    NMFS is delaying, for 60 days, the prohibitions of section 9 both 
with respect to scientific research and enhancement programs to provide 
time to accept applications and process permits for such programs, and, 
generally, in order to conclude discussions with CDFG and CDF regarding 
agreements that will define activities that may occur without taking 
coho salmon. Thus, the requirements of section 7 will be effective on 
December 2, 1996, and the section 9 prohibitions on take will be 
effective on December 30, 1996. This will minimize the disruption of 
otherwise legal activities within the geographic range of this ESU.
    For listed species, section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires Federal 
agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or conduct are 
not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or 
to destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal 
action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the 
responsible Federal agency must enter into consultation with NMFS.
    Examples of Federal actions most likely to be affected by listing 
the Central California coast ESU include Corps of Engineers (COE) 
section 404 permitting activities under the CWA, COE section 10 
permitting activities under the River and Harbors Act and Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission licensing and relicensing for non-Federal 
development and operation of hydropower and EPA promulgation of TMDLs. 
These actions will likely be subject to ESA section 7 consultation 
requirements which may result in conditions designed to achieve the 
intended purpose of the project and avoid or reduce impacts to coho 
salmon and its habitat within the range of the listed ESU.
    There are likely to be Federal actions ongoing in the range of the 
Central California coast ESU at the time that this listing becomes 
effective. Therefore, NMFS will review all ongoing actions that may 
affect the listed species with the Federal agencies, and will complete 
formal or informal consultations, where requested or necessary, for 
such actions as appropriate, pursuant to ESA section 7(a)(2).
    NMFS has issued section 10(a)(1)(A) research or enhancement permits 
for other listed species (e.g., Snake River chinook salmon, Sacramento 
River winter-run chinook salmon) for a number of activities, including 
trapping and tagging to determine population distribution and 
abundance, and collection of adult fish for artificial propagation 
programs. NMFS is aware of several sampling efforts for coho salmon in 
the Central California coast coho ESU, including efforts by Federal and 
state fisheries agencies, and private landowners. These and other 
research efforts could provide critical information regarding coho 
salmon distribution and population abundance.
    Section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permits may be issued to non-
Federal entities to authorize take of listed species incidental to 
otherwise lawful activities. The types of activities potentially 
requiring a section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permit include the 
operation and funding of hatcheries and release of artificially 
propagated fish by the State, State or university research not 
receiving Federal authorization or funding, the implementation of state 
fishing regulations, and timber harvest activities on non-federal 
lands. Several industrial timber companies with substantial 
landownership within the boundaries of the Central California coast 
coho ESU are in the process of developing HCPs and incidental take 
permit applications for coho salmon. These HCPs are being developed as 
multi-species plans in conjunction with both NMFS and the FWS.
    NMFS and FWS published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 
FR 34272), a policy that NMFS shall identify, to the maximum extent 
practicable at the time a species is listed, those activities that 
would or would not constitute a violation of section 9 of the ESA. The 
intent of this policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of 
this listing on proposed and ongoing activities within the species' 
range. NMFS thinks that, based on the best available information, the 
following actions will not result in a violation of section 9:
    1. Possession of Central California Coast coho salmon acquired 
lawfully by permit issued by NMFS pursuant to section 10 of the ESA, or 
by the terms of an incidental take statement pursuant to section 7 of 
the ESA.
    2. Federally approved projects that involve activities such as 
silviculture, grazing, mining, road construction, dam construction and 
operation, discharge of fill material, stream channelization or 
diversion for which consultation has been completed, and when such 
activity is conducted in accordance with any terms and conditions 
provided by NMFS in an incidental take statement accompanied by a 
biological opinion pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA.
    3. Incidental catch of coho salmon by recreational anglers in 
freshwater streams, provided they are fishing legally under California 
fishing regulations (which must comply with a NMFS incidental take 
permit) and the coho salmon is returned immediately to the water using 
handling practices to minimize injury to the fish.
    4. Diversion of water, provided a properly designed and functional 
fish screen (i.e. meets NMFS screen criteria) is in place to prevent 
entrainment of coho salmon and if resulting instream flow conditions do 
not adversely affect coho salmon.
    5. Ongoing habitat restoration efforts that have been reviewed and 
approved by NMFS.
    Activities that NMFS thinks could potentially harm coho salmon in 
the Central California Coast ESU and result in ``take'', include, but 
are not limited to:
    1. Land-use activities that adversely affect coho salmon habitat 
(e.g. logging, grazing, farming, road construction) in riparian areas 
and areas susceptible to mass wasting and surface erosion.
    2. Unauthorized destruction/alteration of the species' habitat, 
such as removal of large woody debris or riparian shade canopy, 
dredging, discharge of fill material, draining, ditching, diverting, 
blocking, or altering stream channels or surface or ground water flow.
    3. Discharges or dumping of toxic chemicals or other pollutants 
(i.e., sewage, oil, and gasoline) into waters or riparian areas 
supporting the species.
    4. Violation of discharge permits.
    5. Pesticide applications in violation of label restrictions.
    6. Interstate and foreign commerce of central California coast coho 
salmon (commerce across state lines and international boundaries) and 
import/export of central California coast coho salmon without prior 
obtainment of a threatened or endangered species permit.
    7. Unauthorized collecting or handling of the species. Permits to 
conduct these activities are available for purposes of scientific 
research or to

[[Page 56148]]

enhance the propagation or survival of the species.
    8. Introduction of non-native species likely to prey on salmon or 
displace them from their habitat.
    This list is not exhaustive. It is intended to provide some 
examples of the types of activities that might be considered by the 
NMFS as constituting a ``take'' of Central California coast coho salmon 
under the ESA and its regulations. Questions regarding whether specific 
activities will constitute a violation of section 9, and general 
inquiries regarding prohibitions and permits, should be directed to 
NMFS (see ADDRESSES).

Conservation Measures

    Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or 
threatened under the ESA include recognition, recovery actions, Federal 
agency consultation requirements, and prohibitions on taking. 
Recognition through listing promotes public awareness and conservation 
actions by Federal, State, and local agencies, private organizations, 
and individuals.
    Several protective and recovery efforts are underway to address 
problems contributing to the decline of the Central California coast 
coho salmon ESU. These include the listing of coho salmon south of San 
Francisco under CESA, the implementation of improved protective 
measures for timber harvest in watersheds south of San Francisco, and 
the development of a recovery plan for coho salmon south of San 
Francisco. Other important future efforts include development of the 
California Resources Agency's CSI, the development of several HCPs by 
industrial timber companies, and development of a Memorandum of 
Understanding (MOU) with Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 
and others.
    As discussed under the listing determination, NMFS encourages the 
State to continue its work with the CSI to create a comprehensive 
conservation plan for coho salmon throughout California. NMFS thinks 
these cooperative conservation efforts wherein diverse stakeholders 
achieve both environmental and economic goals are essential components 
of recovery planning for coho salmon and other salmonids. Even after a 
final listing of the Central California coho salmon ESU, the CSI 
process can serve as an important forum to assist NMFS in the 
development of ESA 4(d) regulations for listed salmonids.
    The California Forest Practices Act provides a process to list 
threatened or endangered species as ``Sensitive Species,'' thereby 
requiring additional protection measures either throughout the species 
range or specific to individual watershed basins. This process could be 
employed to provide substantial conservation benefits for coho salmon 
in the central California coast ESU, where at present more than 90 
percent of the land is in private ownership, and silviculture is a 
predominant land use activity. In response to the listing of the 
Central California coast salmon ESU, the CDF, State Water Resources 
Control Board, and CDFG, in cooperation with Federal agencies, could 
provide special emphasis to habitat areas containing listed coho salmon 
to promote their recovery.
    NMFS will assess new scientific information as it becomes available 
and will continue to assess the degree to which ongoing Federal, state, 
and local conservation initiatives reduce the risks faced by coho 
salmon in the Central California coast coho salmon ESU. If these or 
future initiatives clearly ameliorate risk factors and demonstrate that 
the species is recovering, NMFS will reconsider the listing status. 
Information regarding the efficacy of conservation efforts and any new 
scientific data regarding the Central California Coast coho salmon ESU 
should be submitted to NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
    NMFS intends to move rapidly during the next year to develop and 
implement a strategy to halt the decline and begin the recovery of coho 
salmon populations within the Central California coast coho salmon ESU. 
Because the vast majority of land in this ESU is in private ownership 
(ca. 90 percent), the key to protecting and recovering coho salmon in 
this ESU will be the implementation of conservation measures on private 
lands. Also, because coho salmon in this ESU are being listed as 
threatened, NMFS intends to take full advantage of section 4(d) of the 
ESA to define and authorize incidental take of coho salmon and its 
habitat in association with various land use activities on private 
lands. Key elements of the coho salmon conservation strategy that NMFS 
will pursue include:
    1. Development of ESA 4(d) Rules--NMFS intends to pursue the 
development of one or more ESA 4(d) rules that will identify 
conservation measures and strategies for various non-federal land use 
sectors (e.g. timber harvest, agriculture, and grazing, etc.) and 
define acceptable levels of incidental take. NMFS thinks that the 
California Resources Agency's CSI can serve as a particularly useful 
forum for developing these conservation strategies, since a broad range 
of stakeholder groups participate in the CSI process. NMFS, therefore, 
encourages rapid progress by the participants in the CSI so that its 
work products can contribute to or be incorporated into a 4(d) rule 
that may define, with greater specificity, permissible activities and 
protect landowners from potential section 9 liabilities.
    2. Development of Interim/Long-term Protective Strategies for 
Timber Harvest--NMFS will continue to work aggressively with the 
California Board of Forestry and CDF to develop guidelines for the 
development of Timber Harvest plans which do not result in the take of 
coho salmon, including harm to the species by degradation of its 
habitat. In addition, NMFS will work with the Bureau of Forestry, CDF, 
and landowners to develop protection strategies for coho salmon and its 
habitat throughout the ESU. These strategies may also reduce harm or 
incidental take of coho salmon as a result of modification to habitat. 
NMFS is hopeful that this type of protection plan can be incorporated 
into an ESA 4(d) rule which will address smaller landowners in this 
ESU.
    3. Development of Multi-Species HCPs and ITPs--NMFS will continue 
to work with large industrial timber landowners within this ESU to 
develop HCPs which protect and conserve coho salmon and its habitat, 
while at the same time allowing landowners to conduct their economic 
activities with long-term certainty. NMFS will continue its commitment 
to work with the FWS to develop multi-species HCPs and issue multi-
species ITPs. These efforts are important because large landowners 
control and manage a substantial portion of coho salmon habitat within 
the Central California coast coho salmon ESU.
    4. Development and Implementation of an MOU with NRCS and others--
NMFS will continue working with the Natural Resource Conservation 
Service, FWS, EPA, the State, local and private interests (e.g. The 
California Association of Resource Conservation Districts) to develop 
and implement a voluntary, watershed-based, locally driven program to 
assist the agricultural and grazing community in complying with Federal 
and State endangered species and water quality laws including 
protecting coho salmon and its habitat. Both technical and financial 
assistance will be made available to farmers in high-priority 
watersheds.
    5. Ocean Harvest Management--NMFS expects that it will be necessary 
to continue the restrictions on coho

[[Page 56149]]

salmon harvest that have been in place since 1994 to protect listed and 
proposed coho salmon populations. At this time, NMFS does not think 
that further restrictions on the ocean chinook fisheries are needed to 
reduce ocean harvest impacts on coho salmon.
    6. State-managed Fisheries and Hatcheries--NMFS intends to work 
with the State of California to evaluate its current fisheries 
management regulations and hatchery activities to ensure that impacts 
to coho salmon from in-river recreational fisheries and State managed 
hatchery practices are minimized. As necessary, NMFS will work with the 
State to amend its sportfishing regulations and provide incidental take 
authorization for recreational fisheries targeting other species of 
salmon, steelhead and trout. Similarly, NMFS will review and authorize 
appropriate hatchery practices.
    7. Develop and Implement Recovery Plan--NMFS intends to establish a 
recovery team to develop a recovery plan for coho salmon once the final 
decisions on coho salmon status coastwide are completed by the agency 
in the coming months. In the interim, NMFS will continue to work with 
the State in its efforts to develop a recovery plan for coho salmon 
populations south of San Francisco where the species has been listed 
under the CESA.

Critical Habitat

    Section 4(a)(3)(A) of the ESA requires that, to the extent prudent 
and determinable, critical habitat be designated concurrently with the 
listing of a species. NMFS has completed its analysis of the biological 
status of the Central California Coast coho salmon ESU, but has not 
completed the analysis necessary for the designation of critical 
habitat. NMFS has decided to proceed with the final listing 
determination now and to proceed with the designation of critical 
habitat in a separate rulemaking. Section 4(b)(6)(C)(ii) provides that, 
where critical habitat is not determinable at the time of final 
listing, NMFS may extend the period for designating critical habitat by 
not more than one additional year. Congress further stated in the 1982 
amendments to the ESA, ``where the biology relating to the status of 
the species is clear, it should not be denied the protection of the Act 
because of the inability of the Secretary to complete the work 
necessary to designate critical habitat.'' H. Rep. No. 567, 97th Cong., 
2d Sess. 19 (1982). NMFS believes that this final listing determination 
is appropriate and necessary to protect the ESU and is consistent with 
congressional direction.
    NMFS further concludes that critical habitat is not determinable at 
this time because information sufficient to perform the required 
analysis of the impacts of the designation is lacking. NMFS has 
solicited information necessary to designate critical habitat in its 
proposed rule (60 FR 38011, July 25, 1995) and will consider such 
information in the proposed designation. Specifically, designation 
requires a determination of those physical and biological features that 
are essential to the conservation of the species and which may require 
special management considerations or protection; it further requires 
the consideration of economic analysis of the impacts of the 
designation. These analyses have not yet been completed, and, 
therefore, critical habitat is not determinable at this time.

Classification

    The 1982 amendments to the ESA in section 4(b)(1)(A) restrict the 
information that may be considered when assessing species for listing. 
Based on this limitation of criteria for a listing decision and the 
opinion in Pacific Legal Foundation v. Andrus, 675 F. 2d 825 (6th Cir., 
1981), NMFS has categorically excluded all ESA listing actions from the 
environmental assessment requirements of NEPA (48 FR 4413; February 6, 
1984).
    As noted in the Conference Report on the 1982 amendments to the 
ESA, economic considerations have no relevance to determinations 
regarding the status of the species. Therefore, the economic analysis 
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act are not applicable to 
the listing process. Similarly, this final rule is exempt from review 
under E.O. 12866.

References

    The complete citations for the references used in this document can 
be obtained by contacting Craig Wingert, NMFS (see ADDRESSES)

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 227

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Marine 
mammals, Transportation.

    Dated: October 24, 1996.
Gary Matlock,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 227 is amended 
as follows:

PART 227--THREATENED FISH AND WILDLIFE

    1. The authority citation of part 227 continues to read as follows:
    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.

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


Sec. 227.4  Enumeration of threatened species.

* * * * *
    (h) Central California coast coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch).
    3. Section 227.21 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 227.21  Threatened salmon.

    (a) Prohibitions. The prohibitions of section 9 of the ESA (16 
U.S.C. 1538) relating to endangered species apply to the threatened 
species of salmon listed in Sec. 227.4 (f), (g), and (h), except as 
provided in paragraph (b) of this section. These prohibitions shall 
become effective for the threatened species of salmon listed in 
Sec. 227.4(h) on December 30, 1996.
    (b) Exceptions. (1) The exceptions of section 10 of the Act (16 
U.S.C. 1539) and other exceptions under the Act relating to endangered 
species, including regulations implementing such exceptions, also apply 
to the threatened species of salmon listed in Sec. 227.4 (f), (g), and 
(h). This section supersedes other restrictions on the applicability of 
parts 217 and 222 of this chapter, including, but not limited to, the 
restrictions specified in Secs. 217.2 and 222.22(a) of this chapter 
with respect to the species identified in 227.21(a).
    (2) The prohibitions of paragraph (a) of this section relating to 
threatened species of salmon listed in Sec. 227.4 (h) of this part do 
not apply to activities specified in an application for a permit for 
scientific purposes or to enhance the propagation or survival of the 
species provided that the application has been received by the 
Assistant Administrator by December 30, 1996. This exception ceases 
upon the Assistant Administrator's rejection of the application as 
insufficient, upon issuance or denial of a permit, or on May 31, 1997, 
whichever occurs earliest.

[FR Doc. 96-27887 Filed 10-25-96; 5:05 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P-M