[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 63 (Monday, April 2, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19552-19563]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7860]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 224
[Docket No. 100323162-2182-03]
RIN 0648-XV30
Endangered and Threatened Species; Range Extension for Endangered
Central California Coast Coho Salmon
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), are issuing
a final rule under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as
amended, that redefines the geographic range of the endangered Central
California Coast (CCC) coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch)
Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) to include all naturally spawned
populations of coho salmon that occur in Soquel and Aptos creeks.
Information supporting this boundary change includes recent
observations of coho salmon in Soquel Creek, genetic analysis of these
fish indicating they are derived from other nearby populations in the
ESU, and the presence of freshwater habitat conditions and watershed
processes in Soquel and Aptos Creeks that are similar to those found in
closely adjacent watersheds that support coho salmon populations that
are part of the ESU. We have also reassessed the status of this ESU
throughout its redefined range and conclude that it continues to be
endangered.
DATES: Effective June 1, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Assistant Regional Administrator, Protected Resources
Division, Attn: Craig Wingert, Southwest Region, National Marine
Fisheries Service, 501 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 5200, Long Beach, CA,
90802-4213.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig Wingert, NMFS, Southwest Region,
(562) 980-4021; or Dwayne Meadows, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources,
(301) 427-8403.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Central California Coast (CCC) coho salmon Evolutionarily
Significant Unit (ESU) was listed as a threatened species on October
31, 1996 (61 FR 56138) and subsequently reclassified as an endangered
species on June 28, 2005 (70 FR 37160). At the time it was reclassified
as endangered in 2005, the ESU was defined to include all naturally
spawning populations of coho salmon found in coastal watersheds from
Punta Gorda in northern California southward to and including the San
Lorenzo River in central California, as well as four artificially
propagated stocks of coho salmon. For more information on the status,
biology, and habitat of this coho salmon ESU, see ``Endangered and
Threatened Species: Final Listing Determinations for 16 ESUs of West
Coast Salmonids and Final 4(d) Protective Regulations for Threatened
Salmonid ESUs; Final Rule'' (70 FR 37160; June 28, 2005) and ``Final
Rule Endangered and Threatened Species; Threatened Status for Central
California Coast Coho Salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU)''
(61 FR 56138; October 31, 1996).
The geographic boundaries of west coast coho salmon ESUs ranging
from British Columbia to central California were originally delineated
as part of a west coast status review for the species (Weitkamp et al.,
1995). In defining ESU boundaries for west coast coho salmon, NMFS
considered a wide range of information including genetic and life
history information for natural and hatchery populations, and
environmental and habitat information for those watersheds that
supported coho salmon either historically or at the time of the review.
Based on a consideration of the best available information at that
time, Weitkamp et al. (1995) concluded that the southern boundary of
the CCC coho salmon ESU was the San Lorenzo River in Santa Cruz County,
California. Weitkamp et al. (1995) also recognized that coho salmon
could also occur in watersheds south of the San Lorenzo River and,
therefore, concluded that any fish found spawning south of the San
Lorenzo River that were not the result of non-native stock transfers
from outside the ESU should be considered part of the ESU.
In 2003, NMFS received a petition to delist those populations of
the CCC coho salmon ESU that spawn in coastal streams south of the
entrance to San Francisco Bay. The petition was eventually accepted by
NMFS (75 FR 16745; April 2, 2010), which triggered a formal status
review focused on determining whether the populations south of the
entrance to San Francisco Bay were part of the ESU, what the
appropriate southern boundary of the ESU should be, and the biological
status of any revised ESU. In conducting this status review, new
information became available indicating that the range of the ESU
should be extended southward (Spence et al., 2011). This information
included observations of coho salmon in Soquel Creek in 2008, genetic
analysis of tissue samples indicating that the fish from Soquel Creek
were closely related to nearby coho salmon populations in the ESU, and
the ecological similarity of Soquel and Aptos creeks with other nearby
creeks that support coho salmon. Based on this information, a review of
the biological status of coho salmon populations within this ESU
(Spence and Williams, 2011), and a consideration of the five factors
listed under Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA, we proposed moving the
southern boundary of the ESU south from the San Lorenzo River to
include any coho salmon found in Soquel and Aptos creeks (76 FR 6383;
February 4, 2011).
Summary of Peer Review and Public Comments on Proposed CCC Coho Salmon
ESU Range Extension
Peer Review Comments
In December 2004, the Office of Management (OMB) issued a Final
Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review establishing minimum
standards for peer review. Similarly, a joint NMFS/U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) Policy for Peer Review in Endangered Species Act
Activities (59 FR 34270; July 1, 1994) requires us to solicit
independent expert review from at least three qualified specialists on
proposed listing determinations. Accordingly, we solicited reviews from
three scientific peer reviewers having expertise with coho salmon in
California and received comments from all three reviewers. We carefully
reviewed the peer review comments and have addressed them as
appropriate in this final rule. A summary of the peer review comments
and our responses follow below.
Issue: Proposed ESU Range Extension
Comment 1: Two of the peer reviewers fully supported our proposal
to extend the southern boundary of the CCC coho salmon ESU to include
coho salmon populations in Soquel and Aptos creeks. The reviewers cited
information referenced in the proposed
[[Page 19553]]
rule and its supporting reports (Spence et al., 2011; Spence and
Williams, 2011) as supporting the range extension, including: (1) The
historic and recent occurrence of coho salmon in Soquel Creek, (2) the
likely presence of coho salmon in Aptos Creek historically, (3) the
similarity of freshwater habitat in Soquel and Aptos creeks to that
found in the San Lorenzo River and other nearby streams that also
support coho salmon or did in the past, and (4) the proximity of Soquel
and Aptos creeks to nearby streams that support coho salmon.
Response: We agree with the reviewers that the available evidence
presented in the proposed rule and the supporting technical reports
support our proposal to extend the ESU's range to include coho salmon
populations in Soquel and Aptos creeks.
Comment 2: One peer reviewer indicated that the streams immediately
south of Aptos Creek, including the Pajaro, Salinas and Carmel rivers,
are not likely to have historically supported sustainable coho salmon
populations because: (1) Their spawning and rearing habitat is located
much farther inland compared with Aptos and Soquel creeks (and other
streams farther northward) making adult and juvenile migration
difficult, (2) these habitats are likely to lose their connectivity to
the ocean during periods of prolonged drought, and (3) coho salmon
would therefore be unlikely to persist given their rigid 3-year life
cycle.
Response: We agree with the reviewer's comments and believe they
support our decision not to include the Pajaro River in the proposed
range extension. The reviewer's comments are also consistent with the
rationale that led Spence et al. (2011) to conclude that the Pajaro
River should not be included in any proposed range extension.
Comment 3: One reviewer agreed that the available evidence supports
extending the range of the ESU southward to include Soquel Creek, but
contended that Aptos Creek should not be included in the proposed range
extension because there is no evidence of recent or historic presence
of coho salmon spawning in that watershed.
Response: We disagree with the peer reviewer on this issue. Spence
et al. (2011) explained at length why they concluded that both Soquel
and Aptos creeks should be included in any range extension for this
ESU, and their rationale was the basis for our proposal. First, they
found there was no strong ecological reason that the distribution of
coho salmon would have historically stopped at the San Lorenzo River
(the current southern boundary of the ESU) because there is no
significant ecological break along the coast before the southern edge
of the Santa Cruz Mountains which marks the southern boundary of the
Coast Range Ecoregion. Second, they indicated that Soquel and Aptos
creeks are in the Coast Range Ecoregion, both are in very close
proximity to the San Lorenzo River (approximately 7 and 10 km south,
respectively), and both historically shared many habitat
characteristics with the San Lorenzo and other similar sized coho
salmon bearing streams to the north. Third, they indicated that the
recent documentation of coho spawning in Soquel Creek suggests it is
possible that coho salmon may also stray into Aptos Creek (as well as
Soquel Creek) from populations in nearby watersheds to the north
because of their close proximity.
Based on the arguments presented in Spence et al. (2011), our
proposal to extend the southern boundary of this ESU to include both
Soquel and Aptos creeks was intended to ensure that any coho salmon
found in either watershed in the future would be considered part of
this ESU, and therefore, subject to protection under the ESA. Absent a
formal range extension that includes Aptos Creek, we believe it would
be difficult to ensure that any coho salmon found in that watershed
would be protected under the ESA in the future. By formally including
Aptos Creek in the range extension, we have provided the public and
other entities with notice (and comment opportunity) that any coho
salmon found there in the future will be considered part of the ESU and
subject to protection under the ESA.
Comment 4: The same peer reviewer that disagreed with our proposal
to include Aptos Creek in the proposed range extension also questioned
why Spence et al. (2011) did not recommend including the Pajaro River
in the range extension since it may have also historically supported
coho salmon just as was the case for Aptos Creek.
Response: In evaluating the various alternative southern watershed
boundaries for this ESU (e.g., San Lorenzo River, Soquel Creek, Aptos
Creek, and the Pajaro River), Spence et al. (2011) considered three
primary factors: (1) Evidence of historical and recent occurrence of
coho in each watershed, (2) the historical suitability of freshwater
habitats for coho salmon in each watershed, and (3) the geographic
proximity of each watershed to other known populations of coho salmon.
In making their recommendation for a southern boundary extension,
Spence et al. (2011) weighed all of the available information related
to these factors and concluded that the available evidence did not
support including the Pajaro River in any range extension.
Their reasons for not recommending inclusion of the Pajaro River in
the range extension were: (1) The lack of recent or historical first
hand accounts of coho salmon in the watershed, (2) the likelihood that
environmental conditions were not favorable for coho salmon in the
southern and eastern portions of the watershed because of habitat and
environmental changes that occur in watersheds south of the Santa Cruz
Mountains, (3) the high likelihood that any suitable habitat for coho
salmon in the watershed (most likely in areas draining the Santa Cruz
Mountains) would lose its connectivity to the ocean, unlike Soquel and
Aptos creeks, during periods of drought, thereby precluding successful
adult and juvenile migration to and from the ocean, and (4) the
relatively low likelihood that coho salmon from streams to the north
would stray into the watershed given its relative large distance from
Aptos Creek and the San Lorenzo River (16 and 26 kilometers,
respectively).
Issue: ESU Status and Characterization
Comment 5: One peer reviewer commented that the long-term trend
analysis presented by Spence and Williams (2011) for the abundance of
several coho salmon populations in this ESU failed to emphasize the
major decline in abundance that began for most of the populations
starting in 2006. The peer reviewer contended that the main factor
responsible for the population declines that began in 2006 was a
significant reduction in ocean productivity that began in 2005 and
adversely impacted the ocean survival of coho salmon.
Response: We agree with the peer reviewer that the trend analysis
presented in Spence and Williams (2011) does not reflect the
significant population declines that were observed starting in 2006.
Spence and Williams (2011) did note that the poor returns began in
2006, but did not attribute the declines to any particular cause. We
agree with the peer reviewer that these abrupt population declines
beginning in 2006 were most likely caused by poor ocean conditions that
started in 2005. Other salmon and steelhead populations in California
also exhibited major declines in abundance during this period that were
attributed to poor ocean productivity (Lindley et al., 2009), and
therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that reductions in ocean
productivity were the primary cause of
[[Page 19554]]
these coho salmon population declines as well.
Comment 6: Each of the peer reviewers agreed with Spence and
Williams (2011) that the extinction risk of this ESU has increased
since it was last reviewed in 2005 and that our proposal to list the
ESU as endangered was warranted.
Response: We agree with the peer reviewers that extinction risk for
this ESU has increased substantially since it was last reviewed in 2005
and that the ESU therefore continues to warrant listing as an
endangered species under the ESA.
Comment 7: One peer reviewer felt it was inappropriate for the
proposed rule to characterize the 2008 discovery of juvenile coho
salmon in Soquel Creek (and the associated spawning that produced the
juveniles) as a ``population'' of coho salmon because we do not know if
those juveniles will produce returning adults that will successfully
spawn in the future leading to a persistent population.
Response: We agree with the peer reviewer that the proposed rule
should not have characterized the observation of juvenile coho salmon
in 2008 as a ``coho salmon population'' since this presumes that a
persistent population of coho salmon has been established. Accordingly,
we have revised the final rule where appropriate to indicate there is
documented evidence of coho salmon spawning and rearing in Soquel Creek
rather than evidence of a newly established coho salmon ``population.''
Comment 8: One peer reviewer indicated that the technical reports
supporting the proposed range extension (Spence et al., 2011; Spence
and Williams, 2011) were inconsistent in how they described the number
of spawning events that may have occurred in Soquel Creek in 2008.
Response: The peer reviewer misinterpreted the description of how
many spawning events occurred in Soquel Creek, and therefore, the
reports are not inconsistent. In Spence and Williams (2011), the
authors were referring to genetic analysis of fish collected in three
watersheds, only one of which was Soquel Creek. The method of analysis
used by the researchers referenced in the report can only provide a
minimum number of spawners and for two of the streams (San Vincente and
Alpine) the methodology indicated there had been a minimum of a single
spawning pair. In Soquel Creek, however, the analysis indicated that
there had been at least three individuals involved in spawning, which
indicated that there were a minimum of two spawning events. Spence et
al. (2011) indicate that the juveniles found in Soquel Creek were the
product of at least two reproductive events, and therefore, the two
reports are consistent.
Public Comments
The proposed range extension for the CCC coho salmon ESU was
published on February 4, 2011 (76 FR 6383) with a 60-day public comment
period. Based on a request from one individual, we extended the public
comment period for an additional 60 days, so the public comment period
finally closed on June 6, 2011. Two written comment submittals were
received on the proposed action. One set of comments was provided by
the petitioner and largely focused on the scientific issues addressed
in our 12-month finding on that petition as well as our scientific
evaluation of the petition (Spence et al., 2011). The other commenter
provided comments regarding the potential economic consequences of the
proposed range extension. We carefully reviewed the comments to
identify those issues that were within the scope of the rulemaking and
have addressed those herein. A summary of those comments and NMFS'
responses are presented below by specific issue.
Issue: Scientific Information Used To Support NMFS' 12-Month Finding
That Coho Salmon Populations South of San Francisco Bay Are Part of the
CCC Coho Salmon ESU and the Proposed Range Extension
Comment 9: One commenter asserted that the available scientific
information does not support NMFS' 12-month finding that coho salmon
populations south of the entrance to San Francisco Bay are part of the
CCC coho salmon ESU or our proposal to extend the geographic range of
this ESU south to include coho salmon populations in Aptos and Soquel
creeks. In making this assertion, the commenter argued there were gaps
or other problems with the scientific information used by NMFS in
making these determinations or that we somehow misinterpreted the
available information. The scientific issues raised by the commenter in
support of this assertion were: (1) NMFS' use of intrinsic potential
modeling to evaluate historical habitat potential in watersheds south
of the entrance to San Francisco Bay; (2) questions about recent fish
surveys conducted by the Southwest Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC) in
watersheds south of San Francisco; (3) the absence of genetic data for
coho salmon from the San Lorenzo River; (4) inaccuracies in the
historical hatchery stocking information for coho salmon considered by
NMFS; (5) NMFS' interpretation of archeological data for coho salmon;
and (6) NMFS's evaluation of coho salmon habitat suitability in areas
south and immediately north of the entrance to San Francisco Bay. A
general response to the commenter is provided here and each of the
points identified in this comment to support the commenter's assertion
are addressed in greater detail in comments 10 through 15.
Response: We convened a biological review team (BRT) to thoroughly
evaluate all of the information in the petition to delist coho salmon
populations south of the entrance to San Francisco Bay, as well as all
other relevant scientific data and information concerning the issues
raised in the petition. Based on its review and analysis, the BRT
concluded that: (1) Coho salmon populations south of the entrance to
San Francisco Bay were native to the area and extant populations are
part of the CCC coho salmon ESU; and (2) the southern boundary of the
ESU should be moved farther south to include coho salmon populations
occurring in Soquel and Aptos creeks (Spence et al., 2011). The BRT's
review included an exhaustive assessment of information in the petition
and other relevant information including: Evidence about coho salmon
distribution in the historical literature; archeological data for coho
salmon from native American Indian middens; the suitability of
freshwater habitat conditions for coho salmon in coastal watersheds
immediately north and south of San Francisco Bay; historical hatchery
stocking information for coho salmon in watersheds south of San
Francisco Bay; comprehensive genetic data collected for extant coho
salmon populations throughout the range of the ESU including those
south of San Francisco Bay; and recent information on the presence of
coho salmon in watersheds south of San Francisco Bay including Soquel
Creek. We believe that the BRT used the best available scientific
information and that its conclusions regarding coho salmon populations
south of the entrance to San Francisco Bay represent the most
scientifically defensible interpretation of the available data. Our 12-
month finding and proposed range extension were based upon the
scientific information and conclusions reached by the BRT, and
therefore, we believe these decisions are scientifically defensible and
consistent with the best available information. Responses to the issues
upon which the commenter based his
[[Page 19555]]
assertion are provided in comments 10 through 15.
Comment 10: The commenter criticized NMFS' use of an intrinsic
habitat model to estimate potential coho salmon habitat capacity in
streams south of the entrance to San Francisco Bay. The commenter
argued that the model assumptions were unrealistic and that the model
was not properly calibrated for stream habitat and coho salmon
populations south of San Francisco Bay. For these reasons, the
commenter asserted that use of this modeling resulted in an inaccurate
characterization of coho salmon population structure south of San
Francisco Bay, an overestimation of the historical habitat and
abundance of coho salmon populations in streams south of San Francisco
Bay, and an underestimate of the extinction risk of the populations
south of San Francisco Bay.
Response: In developing the draft recovery plan for the CCC coho
salmon ESU, NMFS established a technical recovery team (TRT) to develop
a scientific foundation for the recovery planning analysis. As part of
its work, the TRT used an intrinsic potential habitat model to estimate
habitat that would potentially be available to support individual coho
salmon populations that are part of this ESU if the habitat was
properly functioning (Agrawal et al., 2005; Bjorkstedt et al., 2005).
The results of this analysis were then used in the historical
population structure analysis and in estimating adult spawner abundance
levels that could have been supported by the habitat. This information
was used to develop viability criteria or recovery targets for the ESU
as a whole. The TRT stated its working assumptions in using this model
and evaluated those assumptions and the overall modeling approach by
comparing available historical adult spawner estimates with adult
abundance estimates that were derived from the intrinsic potential
habitat modeling (Spence et al., 2008). The TRT noted that there was a
high degree of uncertainty regarding available historical estimates of
adult abundance, but they noted these estimates provided the only basis
for assessing whether the estimates derived from the modeling were
within a plausible range for this and other ESUs that were similarly
evaluated (Bjorkstedt et al., 2005). A comparison of projected adult
abundance levels derived from the modeling with adult abundance levels
estimated in a 1965 statewide coho salmon abundance assessment
(California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), 1965) led the TRT to
conclude that the habitat model predicted abundance levels that were
plausible (Spence et al., 2008).
For the area south of the entrance to San Francisco Bay, the TRT
compared intrinsic habitat modeling population estimates with coho
salmon abundance data collected by Shapovalov and Taft (1954) in
Waddell Creek. Shapovalov and Taft (1954) estimated adult abundance of
coho salmon in Waddell Creek over a nine year period covering the
spawning seasons from 1933-1942. The average annual adult run size for
coho salmon during that period was estimated to be 313 fish (range 111-
748). In comparison, the intrinsic habitat modeling for the smallest
independent population in the area south of San Francisco Bay yielded
an estimate of 365 potential adult spawners. Because the habitat
conditions in Waddell Creek at the time of the study were less than
pristine due to heavy timber harvest in the past, the TRT concluded the
modeled adult abundance projection was realistic and not an
overestimate. Based on these and other results presented by the TRT
(Agrawal et al., 2005; Bjorkstedt et al., 2005), we believe the use of
intrinsic habitat modeling for streams south of the entrance to San
Francisco Bay is a valid tool for assessing population structure and
developing population viability criteria for coho salmon. For these
reasons we disagree with the commenter that the intrinsic potential
habitat modeling overestimated historic abundance levels and
underestimated extinction risk for watersheds south of San Francisco
Bay.
Comment 11: The commenter indicated that coho salmon survey
information collected by the SWFSC in streams south of San Francisco
Bay from 2006-2008 and discussed in the BRT's report on the coho salmon
delisting petition (Spence et al., 2011) was incomplete and difficult
to interpret because the survey objectives, methods and detailed
results were not presented. The commenter argued this information was
relevant for evaluating the status of coho populations south of the
entrance to San Francisco Bay and determining whether they were part of
the CCC coho salmon ESU.
Response: The objectives of the SWFSC 's surveys from 2006-2008
were three-fold: (1) To evaluate methods for defining an appropriate
sampling protocol for species' presence in areas where it is known to
be in low abundance or patchily distributed; (2) to develop statistical
methods for estimating occupancy rates of species under such
circumstances; and (3) to develop a short time series on the status of
coho salmon in the area south of San Francisco between San Gregorio and
Aptos creeks, a range which spanned three brood cycles. The genetic
analysis and the surveys completed in connection with this study are
final and documented with detailed results; the surveys and genetic
analysis were completed using standard NMFS methodology but have not
yet been published (SWFSC, unpublished). As such, we do not believe
that the information relied upon was incomplete or difficult to
interpret. Furthermore, the information derived from these completed
aspects of the study is scientifically credible and represents the best
available information on the status and geographic range of coho salmon
south of San Francisco Bay. This final, scientifically credible
information documents the presence of coho salmon in Soquel Creek and
the analysis of genetic data from these fish. This information was
considered by the BRT and was an important factor in their
recommendation to extend the southern boundary of the CCC coho salmon
ESU to include Soquel and Aptos creeks (Spence et al., 2011). This
information was also considered by Spence and Williams (2011) in their
updated assessment of the status of this ESU. Information collected on
the status of coho salmon in these streams was considered by the BRT
and did provide important information regarding the southern boundary
of the CCC coho salmon ESU, as well as the current status of coho
salmon in the streams south of San Francisco Bay (Spence and Williams,
2011). As such, we believe that our determination to extend the
geographic boundary of the ESU southward to include Soquel and Aptos
creeks was founded on the best scientific information available.
Comment 12: The commenter asserted the BRT (Spence et al., 2011)
failed to report microsatellite DNA results for coho salmon from the
San Lorenzo River and that the genetic database for the CCC coho salmon
ESU was therefore incomplete. The commenter further argued that NMFS'
conclusions regarding the origin and ancestry of coho salmon south of
the entrance to San Francisco Bay could be in error because the genetic
database did not include data for fish from the San Lorenzo River.
Response: We do not have any genetic data for coho salmon from the
San Lorenzo River, and therefore, it could not be included in the
genetic data sets analyzed by the BRT (Spence et al., 2011). Coho
salmon are rarely observed in the San Lorenzo River, which has
contributed to the lack of genetic
[[Page 19556]]
information for that watershed. The SWFSC does have a limited number of
coho salmon tissue samples taken from the San Lorenzo River, but they
have not been analyzed largely because of uncertainties about their
origin.
Although we do not have genetic data for coho salmon from the San
Lorenzo River, there are comprehensive genetic data from coho salmon
populations in other watersheds south of San Francisco Bay, as well as
watersheds north of San Francisco Bay, and that information was
carefully analyzed by the BRT (Spence et al., 2011). Based on the
analysis of all the available genetic data for coho salmon in this ESU,
the BRT concluded that extant populations of coho salmon south of San
Francisco Bay are part of the ESU and not the result of stock transfers
from populations outside the ESU (Spence et al., 2011). We believe the
genetic data that the BRT analyzed in its review of the southern
boundary of this ESU are scientifically credible, that they represent
the best available information for coho salmon populations throughout
the geographic range of this ESU including those populations south of
San Francisco Bay, and that they support our determination to extend
the geographic boundary of the ESU southward to include Soquel and
Aptos creeks.
Comment 13: The commenter asserted that, in its review of the coho
delisting petition, the BRT did not use all available historical
records regarding the artificial propagation and out-planting of coho
salmon in streams south of the entrance to San Francisco Bay. The
commenter provided information regarding the history of coho salmon
out-planting in Waddell and Scott creeks that he asserted were in
conflict with that reviewed by the BRT. Waddell Creek is an important
watershed south of the entrance to San Francisco Bay in part because a
major study on the life history of coho salmon and steelhead was
initiated there by Shapovalov and Taft (1954) around the same time coho
salmon were out-planted into the watershed. The commenter suggested
coho salmon were planted in Waddell Creek in large numbers between the
early 1920s and 1933 (citing Streig (1991) and Bryant (1994)) and by
inference, implied that planted fish contributed to the number of
adults observed in the Shapovalov and Taft (1954) life history study.
Response: We reviewed the source data cited by Streig (1991) and
Bryant (1994) as well as other sources of data, and found no evidence
of coho salmon being out-planted into Waddell Creek during the period
from 1911 to 1941, other than 15,000 fish that were released in 1933
and an undetermined number that were released for an age validation
study in 1929. Both of these plantings were considered by the BRT and
discussed in their report (Spence et al., 2011). In evaluating the
Streig (1991) report, which was the basis for the numbers presented in
Bryant (1994), we found discrepancies between reported numbers and the
original sources that were cited. If other stocking information was
used in compiling the Streig (1991) and Bryant (1994) reports, we have
not found that information, and therefore, believe the data and
analysis by the BRT (Spence et al., 2011) are the most scientifically
defensible data available for assessing the artificial propagation and
out-planting of coho salmon in streams south of San Francisco Bay.
Moreover, regardless of the number of fish out-planted into Waddell
Creek or any other watershed south of San Francisco Bay, the BRT
(Spence et al., 2011) emphasized that the out-planted coho salmon
likely experienced very low survival rates due to the common practice
at the time of releasing fish as fry. Because of these low survival
rates, we believe the out-planting of artificially propagated coho
salmon into Waddell Creek is unlikely to have contributed substantially
to the adult coho salmon numbers reported by Shapovalov and Taft
(1954).
Comment 14: The commenter disagreed with the BRT's interpretation
of archeological data from a site at A[ntilde]o Nuevo State Reserve
that was used to support the determination that coho salmon populations
were native to watersheds south of San Francisco Bay. The commenter
asserted that the coho bones found there were from fish that were of
marine origin, rather than from a stream at that site, and therefore,
argued that these data are inconclusive and do not support the BRT's
statement that coho salmon occurred as far south as Santa Cruz county.
Response: The BRT reviewed the most recent available archeological
information relevant to the southern extent of the range of coho salmon
(Gobalet, in press), as well as earlier literature by Gobalet (Gobalet,
1990; Gobalet and Jones, 1995; and Gobalet et al., 2004) that provide
additional information regarding the archeological record for coho
salmon in California. The BRT acknowledged that evidence in the
archeological record for coho salmon in California, particularly in
coastal areas, is sparse (Spence et al. 2011). However, the BRT
considered the information, analysis and conclusions presented in
Gobalet (in press) to be the best available archeological information
relevant to determining the historical presence of coho salmon south of
San Francisco Bay, and their conclusion that coho salmon occurred as
far south as Santa Cruz county is based on that information. The
commenter did not provide any new information to support his assertion
that the coho salmon bones found at the A[ntilde]o Neuvo site were of
marine origin or that would alter our view that these bones are from
coho salmon and constitute significant data documenting the presence of
coho salmon in Santa Cruz County. We believe the data presented in
Gobalet (in press) represents the best available archeological
information relevant to determining the historical distribution of coho
salmon south of San Francisco Bay. In summary, we believe the available
archeological information reviewed by the BRT is scientifically
credible, that it represents the best available information regarding
the historical distribution of coho salmon south of San Francisco Bay,
and that it supports our 12-month finding that coho salmon south of San
Francisco are part of the CCC coho salmon ESU.
Comment 15: The commenter asserted that the BRT's conclusion that
freshwater habitat conditions are suitable for coho salmon in
watersheds both south and north of the entrance to San Francisco Bay
was incorrect and that there are significant habitat differences
between the two areas that preclude the persistence of coho salmon in
streams south of San Francisco. The commenter provided information for
survival rates in streams in Oregon and Washington that were published
in 1982 and compared those data to survival rates estimated by
Shapovalov and Taft (1954). The commenter also provided information on
flood flows recorded during the Shapovalov and Taft (1954) study.
Response: The BRT carefully reviewed contemporary freshwater
habitat data for streams north and south of San Francisco Bay in its
review of the petition to delist coho salmon south of San Francisco Bay
(Spence et al., 2011). Their review included substantial information
submitted by the petitioner as a supplement to the original petition.
Following its review, the BRT concluded that historical habitat
conditions in watersheds south of San Francisco Bay were conducive to
the presence of persistent coho salmon populations since the freshwater
habitat conditions south of San Francisco Bay are not appreciably
different from those in watersheds immediately north of San Francisco
Bay, as described in their report. The BRT also concluded that current
habitat conditions south of San Francisco (as well as elsewhere in the
[[Page 19557]]
range of the CCC coho salmon ESU) are a challenge to coho salmon
populations, but that currently degraded habitat conditions are mainly
due to anthropogenic effects, rather than any inherent characteristics
of the watersheds themselves. We believe that the freshwater habitat
information considered by the BRT represents the best available
information regarding the suitability of habitat for coho salmon south
of San Francisco Bay. The survival rate information provided by the
commenter concerned coho salmon from a different eco-region under
different environmental conditions; furthermore, the data cited by the
commenter were gathered in a time period different from the one
considered in Shapalov and Taft. The data provided by the commenter do
not represent a valid comparison of habitat conditions from areas north
and south of San Francisco, and therefore, do not refute the
scientifically-credible conclusions of the BRT. After considering the
information provided by the commenter and its relevance, in addition to
the information and analysis found in Spence et al., (2011), we believe
that the BRT's conclusions concerning freshwater habitat suitability
for coho salmon in watersheds both south and north of the entrance to
San Francisco Bay were correct. The BRT's conclusions support both our
finding that coho salmon south of San Francisco are part of the CCC
coho salmon ESU and our proposal to move the southern boundary of the
ESU south to include Soquel and Aptos creeks.
Issue: Viability of Coho Populations South of San Francisco Bay and
Their Contribution to the Evolutionary Legacy of the CCC Coho Salmon
ESU
Comment 16: One commenter provided an analysis of data collected by
Shapovalov and Taft (1954) and argued the results indicated coho salmon
populations south of San Francisco were likely to go extinct and that
these and other populations south of San Francisco are ``sink''
populations that are ephemeral and do not contribute to the
evolutionary legacy of the CCC coho salmon ESU. Based on these reasons
and the commenter's interpretation of NMFS' ESU policy, the commenter
argues that coho salmon populations south of San Francisco Bay should
not be part of the CCC coho salmon ESU. A similar argument was made in
the petition to delist coho salmon populations south of San Francisco
Bay.
Response: The BRT that evaluated the petition to delist coho salmon
populations south of San Francisco Bay addressed the viability of coho
salmon populations south of San Francisco Bay and their contribution to
the evolutionary legacy of the species (Spence et al., 2011). Based on
the BRT's review of the best available information (especially
Bjorkstedt et al., 2005), they concluded that populations south of San
Francisco Bay were most likely a combination of independent and
dependent populations that contributed to the overall functioning of
the CCC coho salmon ESU rather than serving as``sink'' or ephemeral
populations. The BRT also noted that even if the populations south of
San Francisco were ``sink'' populations they could still contribute to
the persistence of the ESU as a whole based on the current
understanding of meta-population function. For the reasons stated in
Spence et al. (2011), we reach the same conclusions arrived at by the
BRT with regard to the populations south of San Francisco Bay. Lastly,
the commenter's argument that populations south of San Francisco Bay do
not contribute to the evolutionary legacy of the ESU, and therefore,
should not be included in the ESU, demonstrates a lack of understanding
of the evolutionary legacy criterion in NMFS' ESU policy for Pacific
Salmon (56 FR 58612; November 20, 1991). The commenter is attempting to
apply the evolutionary legacy criterion to individual populations,
which is inappropriate. Under NMFS' ESU policy, the evolutionary legacy
criterion is applied to the group of populations being considered as an
ESU, rather to individual populations. Accordingly, we believe that our
proposed redefinition of the CCC coho salmon ESU boundaries is based on
the best available information and the proper interpretation and
application of NMFS' ESU policy for Pacific Salmon.
Issue: Climate Change and Long-Term Sustainability of Coho Salmon
Populations South of San Francisco Bay
Comment 17: One commenter questioned the long-term sustainability
or viability of the coho salmon populations in coastal streams south of
the entrance to San Francisco Bay in light of potential future impacts
to the species and its habitat from climate change, changes in sea
level, changes in the California Current and its productivity, and
other factors. Given these factors, the commenter expressed concern
about the economic cost of maintaining suitable habitat for coho salmon
populations in watersheds south of San Francisco Bay and questioned the
need to include these populations in the CCC coho salmon ESU and
provide them with protection under the ESA.
Response: Although we recognize that ensuring the long-term
persistence of coho salmon in streams south of San Francisco presents
many difficulties and uncertainties due to the current extremely low
population sizes, the poor condition of the habitat in many watersheds,
changes in the productivity of the California Current, and the possible
effects of climate change, coho salmon populations south of San
Francisco Bay are critical to the long-term viability and recovery of
the CCC coho salmon ESU as a whole, and it is both necessary and
possible to restore these populations (NMFS, 2010). Moreover, once we
identify an ESU that meets the criteria of our ESU policy for Pacific
Salmon, and determine that that ESU is threatened or endangered under
the ESA, we must list that ESU.
Issue: Economic Impacts of Proposed CCC Coho Salmon ESU Range Extension
Comment 18: One commenter asserted the proposed range extension of
the CCC coho salmon ESU failed to consider the potential financial
impacts to landowners and other entities in Soquel and Aptos creeks.
Response: Our proposal was to revise the CCC Coho ESU boundaries in
order to formally recognize that the freshwater range of coho salmon in
this ESU actually extends further south than was previously thought.
Unlike critical habitat designations, section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA
explicitly prohibits us from considering non-scientific information
(including potential economic impacts) when making listing
determinations. If we determine that the existing critical habitat
designation for this ESU should be revised in the future to include
freshwater habitat in Soquel and Aptos creeks, then an economic
analysis appropriate to critical habitat designations, as stated in the
applicable statutes, implementing regulations, and executive orders,
will be conducted.
Revised Geographic Range of CCC Coho Salmon ESU
The ESU boundaries for west coast coho salmon, ranging from
southern British Columbia to Central California, were first delineated
in a 1994 status review (Weitkamp et al., 1995). In delineating these
ESU boundaries, a wide range of information pertaining to West Coast
coho salmon throughout its range was considered, including geographic
variables, ecological and habitat variables, genetic variation among
populations, and variation in life history traits among populations. In
the 1995 proposal to list the CCC coho
[[Page 19558]]
salmon ESU (60 FR 38011), NMFS indicated that the southern boundary of
the ESU was the San Lorenzo River in Santa Cruz County based on the
best available information at that time.
The 1994 status review (Weitkamp et al., 1995) recognized that the
rivers draining the Santa Cruz Mountains south of San Francisco Bay
formed a cohesive group with respect to environmental conditions, and
therefore, concluded that the Pajaro River was likely the historical
southern limit of coho salmon in the area. In determining where the
southern boundary of the CCC coho salmon ESU should be placed, the
status review analysis relied heavily on information provided in a 1993
status review of coho salmon in Scott and Waddell creeks (Bryant,
1994), which indicated there were no recent reports of coho salmon in
rivers south of the San Lorenzo River. Faced with uncertainty about
whether any coho salmon populations were present south of the San
Lorenzo River and the uncertain origin of coho salmon in the San
Lorenzo River, Weitkamp et al. (1995) concluded that the San Lorenzo
River should be the southern-most basin in the ESU and that any coho
salmon found spawning south of the San Lorenzo River that were not the
result of non-ESU origin stock transfers should be considered part of
the ESU.
In reviewing the petition to delist coho salmon populations south
of San Francisco Bay, the BRT reviewed recently collected information
on the distribution of coho salmon in this area (Spence et al., 2011).
Based on this new information and other information indicating that
freshwater habitat conditions and watershed processes in Soquel and
Aptos creeks were similar to those found in nearby watersheds within
the ESU, the BRT recommended that the southern boundary of the CCC coho
salmon ESU be moved southward from the San Lorenzo River to include
coho salmon occurring in Soquel and Aptos creeks. The new information
supporting this recommendation included: (1) Observations of juvenile
coho salmon in Soquel Creek in 2008 and (2) genetic information
obtained from the juvenile coho salmon observed in Soquel Creek
indicating the fish were closely related to populations in nearby
watersheds.
During the summer of 2008, juvenile coho salmon were observed in
Soquel Creek by NMFS scientists for the first time in many years.
Soquel Creek enters the Pacific Ocean about 6.5 km south of the San
Lorenzo River. A total of approximately 170 juvenile fish were observed
in the East Branch of Soquel Creek and some were photographed. These
observations demonstrated that suitable spawning and rearing habitat
for coho salmon occurs in Soquel Creek. A total of 28 of these fish
were captured for tissue sampling and subsequent genetic analysis.
Genetic analyses of these samples used 18 microsatellite loci to
genotype the fish, investigate the origins of their parents, and to
estimate the minimum number of reproductive events that contributed to
the observed juveniles. Standard genetic stock identification
techniques were used with a baseline reference database that included
representative stocks from all regional California groups of coho
salmon. The Soquel Creek fish were compared to coho salmon from a south
of San Francisco Bay reference population (Scott Creek in Santa Cruz
County, California) and it was determined, with very high confidence,
that they were closely related. This analysis demonstrated that the
juvenile fish observed in Soquel Creek were the progeny of locally
produced adults returning to reproduce in nearby streams, and that they
were native to streams draining the Santa Cruz Mountains south of San
Francisco Bay.
Genetic analysis of tissue samples from these juveniles (Garza et
al., unpublished as cited in Spence et al., 2011) also revealed that
they were produced by a minimum of two reproductive events in Soquel
Creek, rather than by a single pair of fish randomly straying into the
watershed. The analysis only determined the minimum number of spawning
parents, so it is possible that additional reproductive events occurred
in Soquel Creek in 2008. This information strongly supports our
conclusion that the fish in Soquel Creek are part of the CCC coho
salmon ESU.
In reviewing the ecological conditions of streams south of San
Francisco Bay that originate from the Santa Cruz Mountains, Spence et
al. (2011) noted that a significant ecological transition occurs
immediately south of the Santa Cruz Mountains, with the northern edge
of the Salinas Valley marking the boundary between an area with cool,
wet redwood forests to the north and an area with warm, drier chaparral
landscapes to the south where small relic redwood forests are primarily
confined to riparian areas near the coast. The Soquel and Aptos
watersheds occur within the Coast Range Ecoregion, which runs almost
continuously from the Oregon border to the southern boundary of the
Santa Cruz Mountains (the northern edge of the Pajaro River basin) and
includes all the streams originating from the Santa Cruz Mountains
south of San Francisco. Soquel and Aptos creeks exhibit ecological,
climatic, and habitat attributes similar to streams historically and/or
presently occupied by coho salmon elsewhere in this Ecoregion,
indicating they provide habitat that is suitable for coho salmon.
Status of the CCC Coho Salmon ESU
Status reviews by Weitkamp et al. (1995), Good et al. (2005), and
Spence and Williams (2011) have all concluded that the CCC coho salmon
ESU is in danger of extinction. NMFS listed this ESU as threatened in
1996 (61 FR 56138) and reclassified its status as endangered in 2005
(71 FR 834). The status reviews by Weitkamp et al. (1995) and Good et
al. (2005) cited concerns over low abundance and long-term downward
trends in abundance throughout the ESU, as well as the extirpation or
near extirpation of populations across most of the southern two-thirds
of the ESU's historical range, including several major river basins.
They further cited as risk factors the potential loss of genetic
diversity associated with the reduction in range and the loss of one or
more brood lineages in some populations coupled with the historical
influence of hatchery fish (Good et al., 2005).
As part of a recent 5-year status review update for listed salmon
and steelhead in California, Spence and Williams (2011) updated the
biological status of the CCC coho salmon ESU, taking into consideration
the recent discovery of coho salmon in Soquel Creek. Their review
concluded that despite the lack of long-term data on coho salmon
abundance, available information from recent short-term research and
monitoring efforts demonstrates that the status of coho populations in
this ESU has worsened since it was reviewed in 2005 (Good et al.,
2005). For all available time series, recent population trends were
downward, in many cases significantly so, with particularly poor adult
returns from 2006 to 2010. Based on population viability criteria that
were developed to support preparation of the draft recovery plan for
this ESU (Bjorkstedt et al., 2005; Spence et al., 2008), all of its
independent populations in the ESU are well below low-risk abundance
targets (e.g., Ten Mile River, Noyo River, Albion River), and several
are, if not extirpated, below high-risk depensation thresholds (e.g.,
San Lorenzo River, Pescadero Creek, Gualala River). Though population-
level estimates of abundance for most independent populations are
lacking, it does not appear that any of the five diversity strata
identified by Bjorkstedt et al.
[[Page 19559]]
(2005) for this ESU currently support a single viable population based
on the viability criteria developed by Spence et al. (2008). Based on a
consideration of all new substantive information regarding the
biological status of this ESU, including the recent discovery of
juvenile coho salmon in Soquel Creek, Spence and Williams (2011)
concluded that the CCC coho salmon ESU continues to be in danger of
extinction and that its overall extinction risk has increased since
2005. We concur.
Summary of Factors Affecting the Revised CCC Coho Salmon ESU
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of Its Habitat and Range
Our review of factors affecting the CCC coho salmon ESU concluded
that logging, agriculture, mining activities, urbanization, stream
channelization, dams, wetland loss, water withdrawals, and unscreened
diversions have contributed to its decline. Land-use activities
associated with logging, road construction, urban development, mining,
agriculture, and recreation have significantly altered coho salmon
habitat quantity and quality (61 FR 56138, October 31, 1996; 70 FR
37150, June 28, 2005). Impacts of these activities include 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 (61 FR 56138, October 31, 1966; 70 FR
37150, June 28, 2005).
Land-use and extraction activities leading to habitat modification
can have significant direct and indirect impacts to coho salmon
populations. Land-use activities associated with residential and
commercial development, road construction, use and maintenance,
recreation, and past logging practices have significantly altered coho
salmon freshwater habitat quantity and quality throughout this ESU, as
well as in the Aptos and Soquel watersheds. Associated impacts of these
activities include alteration of streambank and channel morphology,
alteration of ambient stream water temperatures, degradation of water
quality, elimination of spawning and rearing habitats, removal of
instream large woody debris that forms pool habitats and overwintering
refugia, removal of riparian vegetation resulting in increased bank
erosion, loss of floodplain habitats and associated refugia, and
increased sedimentation input into spawning and rearing areas resulting
in the loss of channel complexity, pool habitat, and suitable gravel
substrate.
The loss and degradation of habitats and instream flow conditions
were identified as threats to coho salmon in Soquel and Aptos creeks in
the draft recovery plan for this ESU (NMFS, 2010). Although many
historically harmful practices have been halted, particularly removal
of large woody debris by Santa Cruz County, much of the historical
damage to habitats limiting coho salmon in these watersheds remains to
be addressed. Habitat restoration activities and threat abatement
actions will likely require more focused effort and time to stabilize
and improve habitat conditions in order to improve the survival of coho
salmon in these watersheds. Additionally, some land-use practices such
as water diversions, floodplain development, unauthorized removal of
inchannel woody debris, quarrying, and road maintenance practices
continue to pose risks to the survival of local coho salmon
populations. Insufficient flow during the summer due to authorized and
unauthorized water diversions is likely one of the most significant
limiting factors to coho salmon, particularly on the lower mainstem of
Soquel Creek.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Education Purposes
Commercial and recreational fisheries are closed for coho salmon in
California; however, coho salmon in this ESU can still be incidentally
captured in fisheries for other species. The impacts to coho salmon of
this type of incidental bycatch are poorly understood, but may be
significant in watersheds where population abundance is low.
Recreational fishing for steelhead is allowed in Soquel and Aptos
creeks, and coho salmon, if present, may unintentionally be caught by
anglers targeting steelhead. The risk of unintentional capture is
believed to be higher in these watersheds than in many other coastal
streams with coho salmon because the current State of California
fishing regulations allow catch and release of steelhead based on
calendar dates regardless of river flow. Steelhead fishing season opens
on December 1, which is a time of year when coho salmon typically begin
their upstream migration and is typically one month before the main
steelhead migration. Fishing for steelhead during low-flow periods may
expose coho salmon adults to increased rates of incidental capture and
injury.
At the time the CCC coho salmon ESU was listed in 1996, collection
for scientific research and educational programs was believed to have
little or no impact on California coho salmon populations. In
California, most scientific collection permits are issued by CDFG and
NMFS to environmental consultants, Federal resource agencies, and
educational institutions. Regulation of take is achieved by
conditioning individual research permits (61 FR 56138, October 31,
1996). Given the extremely low population levels throughout this ESU,
but especially in watersheds south of San Francisco Bay, any
collections could have significant impacts on local populations and
need to be carefully controlled and monitored. In Soquel and Aptos
creeks, two researchers are currently sampling juvenile salmonid
populations using electrofishing as part of their sampling methodology.
Only one researcher is authorized to capture coho salmon and the other
must stop collections if juvenile coho salmon are detected.
C. Disease or Predation
Relative to the effects of habitat degradation, disease and
predation were not believed to be major factors contributing to the
decline of West Coast coho salmon populations in general or for this
ESU in particular. Nevertheless, disease and predation could have
substantial adverse impacts in localized areas. Specific diseases known
to be present in the ESU and affect salmonids are discussed in a
previous listing determination (69 FR 33102; June 14, 2004). No
historical or current information is available to estimate infection
levels or mortality rates for coho salmon attributable to these
diseases.
Habitat conditions such as low water flows and high water
temperatures can exacerbate susceptibility to infectious diseases (69
FR 33102). The large quantity of water diverted from Soquel Creek,
which results in decreased summer flows, may increase the
susceptibility of rearing coho salmon to disease and predation. Avian
predators have been shown to impact some juvenile salmonids in
freshwater and near shore environments. In Scott Creek, which is near
Soquel and Aptos creeks, NMFS staff (Hayes, personnel communication)
have documented substantial predation impacts on out-migrating salmonid
smolts, based on the discovery of pit tags in gull nesting areas.
Predation may significantly influence salmonid abundance in some
[[Page 19560]]
local populations when other prey species are absent and physical
conditions lead to the concentration of adults and juveniles (Cooper
and Johnson, 1992). Low flow conditions in these watersheds may enhance
predation opportunities, particularly in streams where adult coho
salmon may congregate at the mouth of streams waiting for high flows
for access (CDFG, 1995). These types of conditions could significantly
impact coho salmon in Soquel Creek because of the low abundance of fish
in that watershed. Marine predation (i.e., seals and sea lions) is a
concern in some areas given the dwindling abundance of coho salmon
across the range of this ESU; however, such predation is generally
considered by most investigators and the BRT to be an insignificant
contributor to the population declines that have been observed in
Central California.
D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
At the time this ESU was originally listed, most Federal and non-
Federal regulatory efforts were not found to adequately protect coho
salmon due to a variety of factors including uncertain funding and
implementation, the voluntary nature of many programs, or simply their
ineffectiveness. Detailed information on regulatory mechanisms and
other protective efforts for coho salmon is provided in NMFS' Draft
Recovery Plan for this ESU (NMFS, 2010) and the 1996 and 2005 final
listing determinations for this ESU. Since the original listing
determination for this ESU in 1996, few significant improvements in
regulatory mechanisms have been made aside from efforts implemented
under the ESA (i.e., NMFS' efforts under section 7 of the ESA and the
designation of critical habitat for this ESU). A variety of State and
Federal regulatory mechanisms exist to protect coho salmon habitat, but
they have not been adequately implemented (61 FR 56138; October 31,
1996). Overall, we believe that most current regulatory mechanisms and/
or other protective efforts are not sufficiently certain to be
implemented and/or are not effective in reducing threats to coho salmon
in this ESU (70 FR 37160; June 28, 2005).
In Soquel and Aptos creeks, one recent beneficial regulatory change
has been the termination of funding for Santa Cruz County's in-stream
wood removal program in 2009. Curtailment of this program is expected
to eventually result in improvements to summer and winter rearing
habitat for coho salmon in the County. Problems with other regulatory
efforts, including poor oversight and enforcement of State water law
pertaining to permitted and unpermitted diversions, are a significant
concern in Soquel and Aptos creeks.
E. Other Natural or Human-Made Factors Affecting Its Continued
Existence
Long-term trends in rainfall and marine productivity associated
with atmospheric conditions in the North Pacific Ocean have a major
influence on coho salmon production on the West Coast. Natural climatic
conditions may have exacerbated or mitigated the problems associated
with degraded and altered freshwater and estuarine habitats that coho
salmon depend upon (69 FR 33102). Detailed discussions of these factors
can be found the 1996 and 2005 listing determinations for this ESU (61
FR 56138, October 31, 1996 and 70 FR 37160, June 28, 2005,
respectively). No significant changes to this listing factor have
occurred since the original listing, although the risk of climate
change may well have increased.
The best available scientific information indicates that the
Earth's climate is warming, driven by the accumulation of greenhouse
gasses in the atmosphere (Oreskes, 2004; Battin et al., 2007; Lindley
et al., 2007). Because coho salmon depend upon freshwater streams and
the ocean during their life cycle, most if not all populations in this
ESU, including those in Soquel and Aptos creeks, are likely to be
impacted by climate change in the decades ahead, though the type and
magnitude of these impacts are difficult to predict at this time.
Final Determination
Based on a consideration of the best available information,
including new information on the presence of coho salmon in Soquel
Creek, genetic data indicating the fish from Soquel Creek are closely
related to fish from nearby watersheds, the similarity of habitat in
Soquel and Aptos creeks to that in nearby watersheds presently or
historically supporting coho salmon, and the proximity of Soquel and
Aptos creeks to nearby watersheds supporting coho salmon, we conclude
that the southern boundary of the CCC coho salmon ESU should be moved
southward to include Soquel and Aptos creeks in Santa Cruz County,
California. Based on an updated status assessment of coho salmon
populations throughout the range of the ESU, including the recent
discovery of juvenile coho salmon in Soquel Creek, and consideration of
the factors affecting this species throughout the range of the ESU, we
conclude that the redefined ESU continues to be an endangered species.
Section 9 Take Prohibitions and Other Protections
The CCC coho salmon ESU is an endangered species and Section 9 of
the ESA prohibits certain activities that directly or indirectly affect
endangered species. The section 9(a) prohibitions apply to all
individuals, organizations, and agencies subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
Section 9 prohibitions apply automatically to endangered species such
as the CCC coho salmon ESU, throughout its range. As a result of this
range extension, the section 9 take prohibitions now will apply to all
naturally produced coho salmon in Soquel and Aptos creeks.
Section 7(a) of the ESA, as amended, requires Federal agencies to
evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is listed as
endangered or threatened and with respect to its critical habitat, if
any is designated. Regulations implementing this interagency
cooperation provision of the ESA are codified at 50 CFR part 402.
Section 7(a)(4) of the ESA requires Federal agencies to confer with us
on any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a
species proposed for listing or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of proposed critical habitat. If a species is subsequently
listed, section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to ensure that
activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of the species or 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 us under the provisions of section
7(a)(2). Federal agencies and actions that may be affected by the
revision of the CCC coho salmon ESU include the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and its issuance of permits under the Clean Water Act.
Sections 10(a)(1)(A) and 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA provide us with
authority to grant exceptions to the ESA's ``take'' prohibitions.
Section 10(a)(1)(A) scientific research and enhancement permits may be
issued to entities (Federal and non-Federal) for scientific purposes or
to enhance the propagation or survival of the affected species. NMFS
has issued section 10(a)(1)(A) research/enhancement permits for listed
salmonids, including CCC coho salmon, to conduct activities such as
trapping and tagging and other research and monitoring activities.
[[Page 19561]]
Section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permits may be issued to non-
Federal entities conducting activities that may incidentally take
listed species so long as the taking is incidental to, and not the
purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity. The types
of activities potentially requiring a section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental
take permit include, but are not limited to, state-regulated angling,
academic research not receiving Federal authorization or funding, road
building, timber management, grazing, and diverting water onto private
lands.
NMFS' Policies on Endangered and Threatened Fish and Wildlife
NMFS and the FWS published a policy in the Federal Register on July
1, 1994 (59 FR 34272) indicating that both agencies would 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. Based on the best available information, we believe
that the following actions are unlikely to result in a violation of
section 9 for coho salmon in this ESU, including Soquel and Aptos
creeks:
1. Any incidental take of listed fish from this ESU resulting from
an otherwise lawful activity conducted in accordance with the
conditions of an incidental take permit issued by NMFS under section 10
of the ESA;
2. Any action authorized, funded, or carried out by a Federal
agency that is likely to adversely affect listed fish from this ESU
when the action is conducted in accordance with the terms and
conditions of an incidental take statement issued by NMFS under section
7 of the ESA;
3. Any action carried out for scientific purposes or to enhance the
propagation or survival of listed fish from this ESU that is conducted
in accordance with the conditions of a permit issued by NMFS under
section 10 of the ESA
Activities that are likely to result in a violation of section 9
prohibitions against the ``taking'' of fish from this ESU include, but
are not limited to, the following:
1. Unauthorized killing, collecting, handling, or harassing of
individual fish from this ESU;
2. Land-use activities that adversely affect habitats supporting
coho salmon, such as logging, development, road construction in
riparian areas and in areas susceptible to mass wasting and surface
erosion;
3. Destruction/alteration of the habitats supporting coho salmon,
such as removal of large woody debris and ``sinker logs'' or riparian
shade canopy, dredging, discharge of fill material, sandbar breaching,
draining, ditching, diverting, blocking, or altering stream channels or
surface or ground water flow;
4. Discharges or dumping of toxic chemicals or other pollutants
(e.g., sewage, oil, gasoline) into waters or riparian areas supporting
coho salmon in the ESU;
5. Violation of discharge permits into the ESU;
6. Application of pesticides affecting water quality or riparian
areas supporting coho salmon in the ESU;
7. Introduction of non-native species likely to prey on coho salmon
within the ESU or displace them from their habitat.
Other activities not identified here will be reviewed on a case-by-
case basis to determine if violation of section 9 of the ESA may be
likely to result from such activities. Questions regarding whether
specific activities may constitute a violation of the section 9 take
prohibition, and general inquiries regarding prohibitions and permits,
should be directed to NMFS (see ADDRESSES). We do not consider these
lists to be exhaustive and we provide them as general information to
the public.
Peer Review
In December 2004, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued
a Final Information Quality Bulletin for peer review establishing
minimum peer review standards, a transparent process for public
disclosure of peer review planning, and opportunities for public
participation. The OMB Bulletin, implemented under the Information
Quality Act, is intended to enhance the quality and credibility of the
Federal Government's scientific information and applies to influential
or highly influential scientific information disseminated on or after
June 16, 2005. To satisfy our requirements under the OMB Bulletin, we
obtained independent peer review of the scientific information compiled
in the BRT report (Spence et al., 2011) that supports the proposed
range extension and the continued listing of the CCC coho salmon ESU as
an endangered species. The peer reviewers provided only limited, minor
comments which were addressed in the final BRT report.
A joint NMFS/U.S. Fish and Wildlife policy (59 FR 34270; July 1,
1994) requires us to solicit independent expert review from at least
three qualified specialists on proposed listing determinations such as
this range extension. Accordingly, we solicited reviews from three
scientific peer reviewers having expertise with coho salmon in
California and received comments from all three reviewers. We carefully
reviewed the peer review comments and have addressed them as
appropriate in this final rule (see summary of peer review comments
above).
Critical Habitat
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the ESA as: ``(i) The
specific areas within the geographic area occupied by the species, at
the time it is listed in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of
this Act, on which are found those physical and biological features (I)
essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which may require
special management considerations or protection; and (ii) specific
areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
it is listed in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of this
Act, upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are
essential for the conservation of the species'' (16 U.S.C. 1532(5)(A)).
Conservation means the use of all methods and procedures needed to
bring the species to the point at which listing under the ESA is no
longer necessary. Section 4(b)(2) requires that designation of critical
habitat be based on the best scientific data available, after taking
into consideration the economic, national security, and other relevant
impacts of specifying any particular area as critical habitat.
Once critical habitat is designated, section 7 of the ESA requires
Federal agencies to ensure that they do not fund, authorize, or carry
out any actions that are likely to destroy or adversely modify that
habitat. This requirement is in addition to the section 7 requirement
that Federal agencies ensure that their actions do not jeopardize the
continued existence of the listed species.
Section 4(a)(3)(A) of the ESA requires that, to the maximum extent
prudent and determinable, NMFS designate critical habitat concurrently
with a determination that a species is endangered or threatened.
Critical habitat for the CCC coho salmon ESU was designated on May 5,
1999 (64 FR 24049) and presently includes all river reaches accessible
to coho salmon in rivers between Punta Gorda and the San Lorenzo River.
Within these streams, critical habitat includes all waterways,
substrate and adjacent riparian habitat below longstanding, natural
impassable
[[Page 19562]]
barriers and some specific dams. Critical habitat is not presently
being proposed for designation in Soquel and Aptos creek watersheds.
Prior to making any determination regarding the designation of critical
habitat in these watersheds, we will complete an analysis to determine
if habitat in Soquel and Aptos creeks should be designated and whether
any modification of the existing critical habitat designation is
warranted. Following completion of this analysis, NMFS may initiate
rulemaking to designate critical habitat in these watersheds. Any such
proposed rule will provide an opportunity for public comments and a
public hearing, if requested.
References
A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon
request (see ADDRESSES section).
Classification
National Environmental Policy Act
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. 2nd 829 (6th Cir.
1981), we have concluded that ESA listing actions are not subject to
the environmental assessment requirements of the National Environmental
Policy Act (See NOAA Administrative Order 216-6).
Regulatory Flexibility Act, Executive Order 12866, and Paperwork
Reduction Act
As noted in the Conference Report on the 1982 Amendments to the
ESA, economic impacts cannot be considered when assessing the status of
a species. Therefore, the economic analysis requirements of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act are not applicable to the ESA listing
process. Thus, this final rule is also exempt from review under
Executive Order 12866. This final rule does not contain a collection-
of-information requirement for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction
Act.
Federalism
In keeping with the intent of the Administration and Congress to
provide continuing and meaningful dialogue on issues of mutual State
and Federal interest, development of this rule included coordination
with the State of California through the CDFG.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 224
Endangered marine and anadromous species.
Dated: March 27, 2012.
Alan D. Risenhoover,
Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National
Marine Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 224 is amended
as follows:
PART 224--ENDANGERED MARINE AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES
0
1. The authority citation for part 224 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1531-1543 and 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.
0
2. Revise the entry for ``Central California Coast coho,'' in Sec.
224.101(a) to read as follows:
Sec. 224.101 Enumeration of endangered marine and anadromous species.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species \1\ Citation(s) for Citations(s) for
--------------------------------------------------- Where listed listing critical habitat
Common name Scientific name determinations Designations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Central California Coast coho.. Oncorhynchus U.S.A., CA, including [INSERT FR 64 FR 24049; May
kitsutch. all naturally CITATION & April 5, 1999.
spawning populations 2, 2012.
of coho salmon from
Punta Gorda in
northern California
south to and
including Aptos Creek
in central
California, as well
as populations in
tributaries to San
Francisco Bay,
excluding the
Sacramento-San
Joaquin River system,
as well as three
artificial
propagation programs:
the Don Clausen Fish
Hatchery Captive
Broodstock Program,
Scott Creek/King
Fisher Flats
Conservation Program,
and the Scott Creek
Captive Broodstock
Program.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Species includes taxonomic species, subspecies, distinct population segments (DPSs) (for a policy statement,
see 61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996), and evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) (for a policy statement, see 56
FR 58612, November 20, 1991).
[[Page 19563]]
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2012-7860 Filed 3-30-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P