[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